My grandad did over a 1000 days of active service and spent nearly 300 days straight under seige in Trobruk. Incredible he survived. He was an incredible man.

@highjumpstudios2384

2 жыл бұрын

Your grandpa sounds like a badass.

@Miracleberry1

2 жыл бұрын

@@highjumpstudios2384 yeah he was. Apparently in his younger years he was a very good track and field athelete and swimmer :)

@Joker-yw9hl

2 жыл бұрын

What a man

@highjumpstudios2384

2 жыл бұрын

@@Miracleberry1 explains why he survived Tobruk.

@StimParavane

2 жыл бұрын

Kudos.

I met General Omar Bradley in 1981, the last year of his life, at Fort Bliss, TX. I had a chance to talk to him personally on one occasion. He said the North African campaign was necessary to gain experience and find out what worked and what didn't when fighting the Germans. He said he would have hated to have gone in directly into France without this experience.

@johnburns4017

2 жыл бұрын

That was poor excuse for arrogantly taking no notice of the experienced British.

@jean-louislalonde6070

2 жыл бұрын

I must agree with him. The Canadians at Dieppe in 1942 tested the German war machine and they did not like its response.

@johnburns4017

2 жыл бұрын

@@jean-louislalonde6070 North Africa was not a test for US troops. They were poorly trained and led. What's more it was that they took little notice of the British. Launching into German occupied France with the experience and setup the Americans had, would have been slaughter.

@alanfike

2 жыл бұрын

@@johnburns4017 Operation Market Garden

@libertyprime7911

2 жыл бұрын

I hope you're not just telling tales.

The “Free France Army” comprised of soldeirs from mostly Morocco and Algeria, Tunisia and other countries played a crucial part in the Italian campaign. My grandfather was taken from his home at the dead of night at 16 and told he was joining the war efforts against the Axis in Europe. He fought in Italy, Germany and France. His stories were absolutely amazing.

I still have my father's medals upstairs from his exploits in North Africa, el Alemain and in Italy. He was in the advanced workshops of the REME in the 8th Army, he wasn't a big man but even so, weighed just over 6 stone after surviving on rations of bully beef and biscuits with weavels in them for years out there in the desert. They all suffered big time, even the ones that returned. Evidently he was a changed man from the young man who initially embarked to war on the Queen Mary.

This was one of the most concise and objective narratives about WW2 that I've seen. No one is lionized and leaders are portrayed weaknesses and all. Enjoyed it very much...thank you.

@morningstar9233

2 жыл бұрын

Quite agree. Going to look for more of David Reynolds' documentaries.

@ps8432

2 жыл бұрын

Afraid I disagree. There is absolutely no mention of the oil reserves denied Germany by winning Africa / Arabia. Also it was impossible to have invaded Europe over the Channel much before D-day as there was neither the man power or resources in the UK. Remember the USA only entered the war after they had been physically attacked. Up till then most Americans were happy to see the UK beggering themselves to keep buying fighting materials from the USA.

@davidrossi5096

2 жыл бұрын

@@ps8432 idk man about your last part, I don’t think it was honestly disdain that the Americans felt I think it was really more a sense of “no more of our sons are gonna die for European drama” and while many allied government officials were aware of the extent of war crimes and the Holocaust by then I don’t think the American public had any idea. I think they saw a pitched war between fascists communists and imperialists and wondered if/why joining any side would benefit the US or the world as a whole. Obviously once Pearl Harbor happens and Japanese and German brutality becomes more common knowledge you see an immediate shift in public opinion in the US.

@Matt-ur3dm

2 жыл бұрын

@@ps8432 I agree with this. Oil played a massive part. And also the Germans were also intent on engaging the British as they didn't have the sea power to invade Britain themselves. And also he didn't say much about the Italians aggressively empire building in Africa

@123TauruZ321

2 жыл бұрын

Lionized lol

My father was in the US 10th Mountain Division, and fought in the Italian campaign. I remember asking him jokingly how was the fighting in the "soft underbelly"? He glowered at me, and let me know in no uncertain terms that there was nothing soft about the battles he and his fellow soldiers fought there. Even now, I wince every time I hear that term.

@opaaloys

3 жыл бұрын

Italy was a permantent uphill fighting. Ansio and Netuno was not a success and if the allied troops penetrate the Gustavline the axis-power established the Gotenline. In that time Russians move from the River Don the River Pruth. A boot has to be put on top down.

@AudieHolland

3 жыл бұрын

Italy is mountainous. Imagine the Belgian Ardennes region but it's covering half of the country.

@bigwoody4704

3 жыл бұрын

Um,no and Italy didn't get below zero

@michaelprobert4014

2 жыл бұрын

@@opaaloys We're the D day dodgers in sunny Italy ..kzread.info/dash/bejne/ha1k2dSOkaS-fqg.html

My father was at Cassino in the 27th Machine Gun Battalion of the New Zealand 🇳🇿 Second Division as part of the Eighth Army. I did realise that battle for Cassino lasted 5 (!) months. The New Zealanders took heavy losses in the rubble, the Indians were thrown as if dispensable, and Dad would relate how the Poles more than other troops hated the Germans more than any other foe, and threw themselves into the fray suicidally

@SanjayAryal-yb7uh

5 ай бұрын

Do you have any stories about Gurkha units from the Indian army during that time?

another very important aspect was supply lines - Brits on the continent would have to bring in supplies, while Germans had an easier route. In Africa, the Brit empire had shorter supply lines from Australia, India while the Germans had to pass Malta. This allowed the Brits and Americans to gain experience while the Germans lost veterans and equipment. This bought time for the allies to up their war production effort.

@ExpatChef71

2 жыл бұрын

Dr. Robert Citino made a comment in an online lecture that stuck with me: "Amateurs talk about tactics, professionals talk about logistics."

@valiantabello

2 жыл бұрын

You're right and I had never actually considered that. Thanks!

@odessa5631

2 жыл бұрын

@@ExpatChef71 eh everything is important, strategy also. Logistics won't save you if you don't know how to use it

@nicholasconder4703

2 жыл бұрын

It was also important to clear the Mediterranean because it would free up shipping. Shorter travel distance meant a faster turnaround time for transports, meaning more cargo could be carried on fewer ships. The other option would be to travel around the south tip of Africa, which added a lot of distance for shipping travelling to and from the UK and India and Australia. As you say, this is often overlooked by people who complain about the Mediterranean strategy.

@ExpatChef71

2 жыл бұрын

@@odessa5631 you can have the best tactics and overall strategy but if you don't have a reliable supply of and reliable distribution network of stuff and people you're screwed.

Mark Clark's "tough old gut" was no tougher than fighting the Germans in northern Europe. The hedged fields of Normandy, Caen, the Hertgen forest, the Ardennes, were all just as costly ground to capture, and more difficult to supply.

@nickdanger3802

3 жыл бұрын

All of those battles happened after Rome was occupied.

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

sandrabbitlane 'Mark Clark's "tough old gut" was no tougher than fighting the Germans in northern Europe.' Your words. How would you know?

@thevillaaston7811

3 жыл бұрын

@@pearly872 The Italian campaign, and theallied threat to the Germans in the Balkans tied down fifty German divisions.

@bleachorange

2 жыл бұрын

You know, this shows a lack of understanding of mountain fighting. Nowhere in the second world war was mountain fighting on the same level as fighting on any other ground (as far as difficulty and casualties) - except for amphibious assaults. attacking mountainous terrain has always been (and will always be) some of the most difficult fighting a ground army can do. those other locations you mentioned were challenging battlefields, but its not close to the same caliber of difficulty.

@brucenadeau2172

2 жыл бұрын

@@askhams without allies supplies and the western allies bomber offense pulling german airforce fighters west and the need to incease fighters production at the cost of german airforce recon aircraft till 1942 german airforce put 50% aircraft in recon missions after 1942 fighter wore the main missions

My dad was stationed in North Africa. He worked in the same building as Ike. My dad told me a story about how my dad nearly knocked him down a flight of stairs as my father was moving equipment down the stairs as he was walking up. My dad also used to make Ike chocolate fudge after he told my dad that his wife makes real good fudge.

@michael7324

5 жыл бұрын

@ImNotMad ButUR sorry for the confusion. My father nearly knocked Ike down a flight of stairs.

@bigwoody4704

5 ай бұрын

is your dad Monty j/k

Thank you for posting these wonderful documentaries. I wish the History Channel still ran stuff like this.

@thevillaaston7811

5 жыл бұрын

It was a BBC programme.

@ABCBUGGYNZ

5 жыл бұрын

They do!! The History channel is where I first saw this documentary. But I now mostly watch youtube content for a broader, eclectic smorgasbord of varied opinions.

@tommypatchell3342

5 жыл бұрын

The History channel shows the same ww2 stuff over and over and over again I must of watched the World at War series and the ww2 in color series at least 50 times and I'm not exaggerating I can narrate ww2 in color verbatim I know all the lines to the narrative to that series the Military History channel has to get new material,I've watched Masters of War like a dozen times already I have over 300 docs on ww2 that The MilHist channel doesn't show,they are sad!.....

@tommypatchell3342

5 жыл бұрын

@@ABCBUGGYNZ me2 I've watched EVERYTHING the Hist channel and Military History channel has to offer concerning ww2 over and over and over again I can do the ww2 in color series narrative verbatim I've watched that series like 50x already and that is no exaggeration..im done with both of those channels,I have over 300 docs on ww2 I would much rather watch on my KZread library on my cell....milhist and hist channel is sad... I've watched EVERYTHING they have on ww2 for yrs now..they need new shows badly!!!!

@hibbarddiane2

4 жыл бұрын

all ancient aliens.....if the aliens taught it might be better1!!!!

The simplest reason for Torch was that the Allies were not ready for D-DAY in northern Europe until 1944

@marthag1269

3 жыл бұрын

Totally agree with you on this.

@eddiemerc1986

2 жыл бұрын

Sorry to dissapoint you but no. If you exclude the soviets from the equation you are just following the path of Hollywood propaganda not history. If the Soviets would have capitulated in '42 not Torch, D Day or Market Garden would have been enough to defeat the Third Reich. The suffering level would have been grotesque in any campaing the west armies ever attempted against the Reich, if it wasn't for the soviets. And even worse politically it would have been the end to any west goverment if cassualties started to stack in numbers like the eastern front.

@thegeneralist7527

2 жыл бұрын

@@eddiemerc1986 The atomic bomb would beg to differ with you.

@eddiemerc1986

2 жыл бұрын

@@thegeneralist7527 dont understand your point. I hope you are trying to make one. If you think the Americans were closer to get the bomb first you are the next one to be dissapointed, because the Reich was. Otherwise that letter from Einstein to Roosevelt urging him to build one first was a just a bluff. Or wasn't.?

@eddiemerc1986

2 жыл бұрын

@@thegeneralist7527 now imagine a Reich without enemies in Europe. All resources committed to build a bomb from 1939 to 1942. What a different song at play right? And here is the spooky part for you pal: in 1945 after the fall of Berlin, the soviet NKVD capture from the Nazis almost 250 kilos of enriched uranium, 3 tonns of uranium oxide plus 20 liters of heavy water. And the final prize? You guessed it, the blueprints of the first german nuclear device named Uranbombetype. To make you think right? Cheers

Attacking an enemy where his supply lines are weakest is a sound doctrine

My mother lost her father at El Alamein a 37year old father of 5 he was a gunner who re-enlisted and lost his life she felt abandonment for the rest of her life

@robertracicot7232

3 жыл бұрын

How sad...

@dukenukem69

8 ай бұрын

​@@robertracicot7232how rad dad lad

A cross channel landing in 1942 would have been a disaster. The US needed the experience that it got in N. Africa to weed out incompetent commanders, and the time to develop and build all of the specialized gear used in the D day landing that made it possible to land and supply the troops for the drive across France.

@trentk268

3 жыл бұрын

If the US had bitten the bullet and put the Marines in, they would have succeeded. The Army wanted the Marines as far away from Europe as possible.

@afterthesmash

2 жыл бұрын

@@trentk268 That only gets you to a beachhead. Many more problems follow.

@Briguy1027

2 жыл бұрын

In many ways you're right. But at the same time there would be many less obstructions on the shores of Normandy, as constructed by Rommel.

@banditlegal7452

2 жыл бұрын

Lies after lies, usa was waging war against the Japanese in the Pacific where they had to make beach landing in many islands and they were good at it.

@terrysmith9362

2 жыл бұрын

utter nonsense

Not only were we "newcomers to the war," but the chance of mounting a war-winning invasion of Northern Europe was non-existent. There simply were not the military power,, landing craft and logistics to pull it off. There was no air superiority either. The Normandy landing took place at the right time.

@jonnybottle

3 жыл бұрын

Quite right. The interdiction measures before D-Day were immense and the first long range Merlin Mustangs that really whittled down the Luftwaffe only reached the 8th Air Force in the UK in December 1943.

@jessemartinez2276

3 жыл бұрын

The terrain in Italy favorite the Germans. As the German general said after the war. Next time you invade Italy start from the North. France would had been an easier task.

@ozdorothyfan

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed, 1943 would have been too early. A pre-requisite has to be not just air superiority but air supremacy. By D day in 1944 that air supremacy had been established and the Luftwaffe powerless to even interfere far less intervene. Plus the first wave of troops ashore, the assault wave, were the cream of the crop. Average age around 24 to 25. Averaging slightly bigger than the typical soldier. Previous combat experience in the African and Mediterranean theatres described above and even experience of seaborne landings such as in Sicily. All of the above went a long way to ensuring D day was a success which was far from certain. And it all wasn't available till 1944.

@edmundscycles1

2 жыл бұрын

@@jonnybottle it wasn't the P-51 but the P-47 and P-38 that decimated the Luftwaffer . By the time the P-51 D was deployed the majority of the wings had been reduced to their former glory .

@GodKing804

2 жыл бұрын

Yes, the right time is when Americans joined.

such a brilliant narration by Prof Reynolds. Never saw a more passionate historian. Brilliant work.

@habitualforeigner

2 жыл бұрын

Agreed, but the attempts at an American accent were unnecessary.

@greghenderson6782

2 жыл бұрын

Can't agree Prateek. Discussion was 'billed' as the African Campaign and then included the Med. and Sth Europe. Could cop the slide to the Med. but not to Sth Europe. However it did permit discussion of soft underbelly war rhetoric and along in tow came imperialist Britain and perfidious Churchill. No tour de force on Africa or the Med at all. As for southern Europe , an interesting presentation of one historians views, loosely supported by an assortment of facts, relevant or not so much.

The war in the Mediterranean did distract the germans and split their forces...so not the worst decision

WW2 has got to be the most interesting human historical event of all time. So many points of views, so many characters, so many battles...

@tommypatchell3342

5 жыл бұрын

Indeed!.....

@justinluban5474

4 жыл бұрын

Honestly tho I always thought ww1 was the most interesting maps were redrawn new governments made that was some real crazy stuff I mean think one day your Russian the next day your polish that's what happened to some people

@altond511

4 жыл бұрын

@@justinluban5474 Have you ever taken a look at old and new maps of Africa?

@PMMagro

3 жыл бұрын

Is it not that we have so much sound recordings, pictures, film and living survivors own information/stories? I mean why not WW1.

@russyeatman5631

3 жыл бұрын

@@PMMagro My high school history teacher taught us that WW II was essentially WW I, continued. I think he had a point.

never knew quite how much politics was involved in these huge military decisions. its incredible any of it worked out at all.

@lmadeira9826

4 жыл бұрын

Here's something else that speaks of politics and a lot more kzread.info/dash/bejne/ppego8SQpqXaZ5M.html

@stevenleslie8557

4 жыл бұрын

One good reason for invading Italy was the allied occupation forces kept the Communists (i.e. USSR) from filling the vacuum left behind when Germany withdrew.

@russyeatman5631

3 жыл бұрын

All "military" decisions are "political" decisions: "Some of our people will be killed. How do we accomplish our objectives while inflicting more casualties on the other people than they inflict on us? Is the inevitable loss of life worth achieving the objective? The "decision makers" are very, very, seldom in harms way.

@Orson2u

3 жыл бұрын

Two extremely important points, in fact. It is incredible.

@vivians9392

3 жыл бұрын

Politicians should have fought each other in this war...NOT the citizens!

This has been a good series, Thank You! Timeline documentaries seem well organized and presented.

Starting at the Axis most vulnerable front, goes with the doctrine of applying your forces against the enemies weakest point. And while the Italian Front was 'a mess' it did knock out Germany's strongest military ally and build the vital skills and equipement fror Normandy.

This is an incredibly pessimistic view of the British war plan, I think largely because they're focussing on the land war to the exclusion of the naval war (how Britain traditionally prefers to fight). The Italians had a strong navy, much more powerful than the German navy (and decent air force too), and the location of Italy meant that they could raid allied convoys passing through the med just as holding Norway meant that the Germans could raid arctic convoys. This meant that supply had to travel all around Africa (both to supply Russia and get supplies from the colonies), as well as the Royal Navy had to maintain a significant presence in the med to engage the Italian navy should it come out, forces that could be used better elsewhere if Italy was no longer in the war. Knocking out Italy made sense when you look at the theatre as a whole, not just 1 aspect.

@roadtrip2943

3 жыл бұрын

The royal navy effort to maintain supply lines in the Mediterranean, reduce the italian naval and air power, cutoff the Afrika corps supplies and the defence of Malta resulted in brutal navy loses only compared by us and Australian navy loses in support of the guadacanal campaign but on a vast scale. This saga of naval effort is much less reported in the US as a critical history of those times.

@elliskaranikolaou2550

3 жыл бұрын

@Joshua Hanson Italian Naval forces sank 58 British Naval Vessels during WW2. Including: 6 cruisers, 15 destroyers, 37 submarines. They were actually better than what many think. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Royal_Navy_losses_in_World_War_II .

@RobBCactive

2 жыл бұрын

The infrastructure to supply armies in France without early capture of ports simply didn't exist in 1943. Knocking out an ally and causing a German occupation, fighting at a distance gained southern airbases and allowed better preparation. In 1944, it proved that the terrain favoured defence, without the build up of air supremacy, supply capabilities and resistance forces, Normandy could have been a disaster.

@MrCher2

2 жыл бұрын

Right. And we have to remember that time was running against Germany. Germany was running out of fuel and other important materials (and food) thanks to the effective UK blockade of Europe. And the Italian navy was a danger even when Italy was not able to use their naval strength due to lack of fuel thanks to the blockade. Italians didn't even have coal. When allies invaded France, Italy was out of the war and Germany was already softened. And later, the systematic bombardment of German transport infrastructure and other strategic targets destroyed German (war) economy before allies reached German soil. And some of the bomber planes took off from italian airfields. On the other side, Allies were using that time to build their armies, and the infrastructure necessary to supply their armies in France. I'm not convinced that invading France in 1943 would have been a better idea.

@alanjm1234

2 жыл бұрын

@@MrCher2 you're right. Attempting to invade Frace in 1943 would have been a disaster.

Why was the North African and later the Italian campaign fought instead of opening a 2nd front in France in 1942-43? Because a invasion of Europe before 1944 would have failed. Not only was it vital to keep the Suez canal open to keep Great-Britain supplied but when the Americans joined the war there was already an open front in North Africa. It made sense to win that fight instead of rolling the dice on an europen invasion and risk it all. The U.S. military couldn't fight the germans in 1942 and win. Their troops and officers were green and inexperienced, their equipment inferior and untested and they didn't had naval and air supremacy at that time. As an example, in the first battle the americans fought the germans (battle of Kasserine pass) they lost and lost badly. An invasion in late 1942 or even 1943 could have failed with disastrous consequences.

@oldgysgt

6 жыл бұрын

I agree an invasion of Northern France in 1942 or 43 would have been a serious error, and only prolonged the war. America was the great arsenal of the Western Allies, but even our vast manufacturing ability could not have produced the enormous amounts of hardware necessary for a successful invasion much before 1944. General Marshall was a smart guy, but he seriously underestimated Germany’s war making ability.

@Gos1234567

5 жыл бұрын

Yes Churchill was right to defend Egypt,had no choice really.So im not really understanding this presenters claims

@BlairMaynard

5 жыл бұрын

The documentary didn't dispute the logic of securing North Africa first, or invading Sicily and securing the entire Mediterranean. Going into Italy in September 1943, I think was questioned. Vital air and naval superiority in the Mediterranean had been secured and adequate experience had a been gained by US forces. Italy was ideal defensive terrain, if there was a soft underbelly for German forces, it would have been South France. And don't forget, Churchill wanted to continue attacking southern areas of Greece and Rhodes rather than invading France immediately.

@dandyjesus

5 жыл бұрын

See Dieppe disaster.

@BlairMaynard

5 жыл бұрын

@@dandyjesus Dieppe was in September 1942, a year before the invasion of Italy and plenty of time to process lessons learned. Of course, fewer funnies would be built for the invasion, but then again the beach defenses would not be as well developed either, so pluses and minuses.

Very interesting and some enlightening facts. Puts a different perspective on some of the outcomes of the war. Thanks.

I love this narrator he has such a passion for history

@julianpalmer4886

2 жыл бұрын

Rather, he is an absolutely smug thatcherite prat; typical of far too many post Churchill tories, who surely must of lost their pride, if not their private parts in Las Malvinas

I love the quality of this content. Great narrating and great production!

Amazing content! Thank you Timeline!

Thank you very much for showing how political tricks and personal vanity had contributed a great deal to a historical event. Not the war as such, but the war as continuing politics, as the German strategist Klauswitz loved to put it, becomes clear and convincing for us to understand the complexity of World War II.

Mark Clarke's vanity, cost thousands of lives. He got his day in the spotlight, his vanity craved. He went for Rome, which was undefended, when he could have trapped most of the hastily retreating German 10th army, instead most of them escaped north, and the Italian campaign went on for another year. No true commander wastes lives, to feed his own ego. Even American military historian Carlo D'Este called Clark's choice to take the undefended Italian capital of Rome, after Operation Diadem and the breakout from the Anzio beachhead, in early June, rather than focusing on the destruction of the German 10th Army, "as militarily stupid as it was insubordinate". So even the yanks agree!

@ianbell4816

2 жыл бұрын

So ego plays a part. Didn't Patton get himself in hot water for wanting to make a charge to take Berlin? I think Omar Bradley shut him down.

@bigwoody4704

2 жыл бұрын

He still made monty look like the amatuer that he was taking Salerno,Naples and Rome as Monty dithered in the toe then got called back before embarrassing himself more

@salus1231

2 жыл бұрын

@@bigwoody4704 Such nonsense

@bigwoody4704

2 жыл бұрын

*Churchill and the Montgomery Myth,by R.W. Thompson* Montgomery's very unusual personality in some detail. He suggests that Montgomery did not change much after the First World War. He described how Montgomery's "... essentially tidy mind liked the 'set-piece' attack." p. 90. And how, "...he did not absorb a new idea (after the First World War). At fifty he was the same man he had been at thirty ... dedicated absolutely to his profession, completely assured." p. 92. Thompson writes about how "Montgomery's belief in his (own) infallibility seemed absolute, as solid as rock..." "He appeared to be totally incapable of self-criticism, or even of conceiving that his generalship might be less than perfect... Every set-back was instantly rationalized, and the situation was always as he had foreseen and wanted." p. 227. Thompson is describing what our pop psycho culture would call a "Control Freak." The clinical term for this behavior is is 'Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder,' or OCD. *The result was that Montgomery was mentally incapable of taking those risks inherent in the new form of warfare requiring mobile, combined arms operations. Risky battlefield maneuvers was second nature to men like George Patton and Erwin Rommel, but not to Montgomery. The most famous British general went though the entire war using infantry tactics from the First World War and amazingly no one in a position of authority within the British Army ever caught on* *Desert Generals,by Corelli Barnett* Like all true narcissists, Montgomery was incapable of understanding that he might ever be mistaken, let alone wrong, or that there might ever be another point of view. When people disagreed with him, he invariably thought it was because they must be too dim to understand the brilliance of his cerebrations.Montgomery was not only the least essential but a positive impediment to the best conduct of the war, squandering opportunity after opportunity for cooperation and coordination of effort and making his fellow commanders aggrieved and miserable.Montgomery was not only famously insensitive and deliberately insulting to his brothers in arms, but he was capable of outright lies if he thought it would elevate him above potential rivals. *Blood,Sweat and Arrogance,by Gordon Corrigan,page 477* Brooke and the other chiefs of staff should never have allowed Churchill to dictate minor detail,nor to sack Generals and Admirals on a whim(the Air Marshalls got off lightly). *Probably the worst example of picking the wrong man and backing him come what may,was in Brooke's constant support for Montgomery,who should have been dismissed once it became clear that he could not operate in a coalition environment, but whose retention soured Anglo-American relations for years after the War.*

@5KpGD

6 ай бұрын

​@@bigwoody4704 awesome sources!

You are the best history channel on KZread, period. Thank you for posting.

The man in the thumbnail is Sergeant Ian Thomas 34163 of 22nd Battalion 2nd New Zealand Division. The photo was taken at 7.30 pm on the start line of an attack by 6 Brigade near Ruweisat Ridge. "I was sitting on the start line, with my back to the enemy. I was wounded that night" (Ian Thomas)

@dukenukem69

8 ай бұрын

That's an ss officer

David Reynolds rocks! Hope he makes a lot more of these programs

The "soft" underbelly turned out to be a "tough" old gut in reality. =D

@scottleft3672

6 жыл бұрын

world at war quote.

@spin-cthrowshands5553

5 жыл бұрын

@@scottleft3672 American general quote

@MogofWar

5 жыл бұрын

The tough gut was still the softest front.

@forexdragon

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah, who's the moron who came up with that term?

@tommypatchell3342

5 жыл бұрын

It's a shame that Italy was overshadowed by D-Day.. Italy was one of the bloodiest campaigns of World War II...not too many people realized it..the allies slugged it out fiercely with the Germans,both sides fought savagely along with the brits,poles,indians,aussies etc.. the whole way from Sicily to the mountains near the Po River,very very brutal campaign nonetheless...

Superb film at every turn. This is history at its very best. Congratulations, Timeline.

Kudos to Britain and the soliders of Commonwealth nations

RIP all soldiers!

@tommycurry9412

2 жыл бұрын

Amen

He never once mentioned British motivation to re-open the Med to shipping between India and the UK, which could not be safely done until the Allies secured North Africa and Sicily. The route through around the Horn of Africa decreased British shipping capacity (still the largest in the world at that time) by 30%; a massive tax on their transport system upon which everything depended. A serious oversight in Mr Reynold's research and historical analysis of the campaign. Re-opening the Med to commercial and military shipping in 1943, literally made the invasion of NW Europe possible in 1944 as it opened enough shipping capacity to accelerate the shipment of US men and materiel to England for the cross channel invasion. It's not likely the Allies could have successfully invaded NW Europe in 1943 in any case, due to the shortage of landing craft, large and small. 44 or 45 was really the only possibility, and taking back control of Med sea lanes ensured that it would happen in 1944.

@johnburns4017

2 жыл бұрын

This Reynolds has not a clue.

@bigwoody4704

2 жыл бұрын

Burns,monty only won because of massive advantages that even he couldn't faff it up.....but he tried.He had nothing to do with any of them

@johnburns4017

2 жыл бұрын

@@bigwoody4704 Rambo, a quiz. Name the British general that went through *nine* countries with no reverses? 20 points for the correct answer.

@bigwoody4704

2 жыл бұрын

Go to bed LOSER - it's 3 in the morning there,Grab your monster Boobs Magazine and hit the rack!!!🤣 since 1940 - British Empire forces "evacuated" from Norway,Netherlands Belgium and France🚑🚑🚑(Dunkirk). 1941 - Greece, Crete,Hong Kong and Libya. 1942 - Singapore,Dieppe and Tobruk.What's that 0-11 or sum such. Real Juggernaut - keep popping off. *Tell your droopy delusions to the rest of Europe* A very small player on the winning team and lucky to be there at that 😜

@johnburns4017

2 жыл бұрын

@@bigwoody4704 *BZZZZT!* Wrong answer. The name the British general that went through nine countries with no reverses was... 🎈🍾🎊 *General Montgomery* 🎈🍾🎊 Zero points Rambo. Zero. Better luck next time.

Well made and informative. Thanks.

Good film, possibly the best on this channel. Thanks for posting.

I can save you 45 minutes with a few words. Oil, Suez Canal, and getting experience going against the Germans before the big show in Europe. I think at heart most Brits already knew the days of Empire were over and while Churchill was beloved, he was already seen as a relic of bygone era. A lot of the old British elites probably pressured him with their delusions of maintaining the Empire

@fod1235

2 жыл бұрын

You’re so cool

The docuementary does present one view . But I do believe that the invasion of Italy and Sicily did have several benefits. Namely knocking Italy out of the war , tying down German troops that could have been sent to the eastern front, giving valuable experience in amphibious warfare and inter service cooperation. A defeat of allied forces in 1942/43 d day would have been a disaster for free people the world over.

@oldgysgt

6 жыл бұрын

Rohan Nair; Italy was never much of a treat, but the war in Italy did cost Germany troops and equipment that could have used elsewhere.

@Gos1234567

5 жыл бұрын

He even says at one point that no way could the allies have crossed the channel in 43,he blames in on the battle in N.Africa (but they had to fight there really) so this doc seems to contradict itself

@ABCBUGGYNZ

5 жыл бұрын

You're right!!!

@johnnyhoops3991

5 жыл бұрын

@@oldgysgt Italy would have become a major problem if i was not knocked out of the war, and the Allied invasion of France got stuck. Churchill's thinking was sound in securing Allied domination of the Mediterranean before any attempt on Northern France.

@oldgysgt

5 жыл бұрын

​ Johnny Hoops ; Italy had poor equipment and its troops had poor morale and were poorly lead. They got kicked around by Greece, Briton and later on by the Germans. Their only success was against the Ethiopians, and the British even kicked them out of there. The Italian military wasn't a real threat to any modern nation in the 1930s or 1940s. Above all, Churchill wanted to protect the British Empire, and without control of the Mediterranean that would have been almost impossible.

Watched part 1. Have watched several dozen WW2 docs. Can't vouch for the truth of this guys assertions, but he brings an interesting perspective and made me look at the war in another way. Well done, and I liked the attention to dates and the maps. Great example of how to make a war doc. , properly.

So very very interesting! Thank you for this documentary!

As a soldier in the 3rd Division USA my cousin took part in four invasions before he was 19 years old.

@brucewindell5885

3 жыл бұрын

And today the snow flakes need a safe space to cry in. What has the world come to.

@Youalldjfnf

2 жыл бұрын

@Dingleberry Mcdinglepants do you snow flake

@markskeldon1347

2 жыл бұрын

The men of that generation were definitely not snowflakes. Leaving their loved ones in order to protect their way of life, living on the front lines much of the time, seeing almost all of their buddies die, suffering extreme hardships but still remaining alert for what is to come.

Remember the Poles at Monte Cassino!

@scottleft3672

6 жыл бұрын

remember them at wars end.....forgotten.

@timothycasey4738

5 жыл бұрын

Poles, took a knock on the "chin" in 1939 no way able to fight Germany from the West, Russia((USSR) from the East. But after that the Poles we're in many of the Theater of Operations!

@charlesharper2357

5 жыл бұрын

The way that Churchill abused and betrayed the Poles that fought for Britain was utterly disgusting.

@raydematio7585

5 жыл бұрын

In fact it was exactly the opposite. Churchill did everything he could for the Poles, standing up to Stalin and Roosevelt on their behalf, but was unable to support them. Britain went to war when Poland was attacked

@granvillefery

5 жыл бұрын

@@charlesharper2357 Very well said

I have learned so much from this channel about histiry! I am 54 and hated history as a kid! Now I simply can't get enough!!!!!! ❤️❤️❤️

Riveting! Highlights a new perspective on the period I've never heard before.

awesome docs. haven't seen these. very well done. great presenter. good footage. in-depth African campaign which is usually bypassed by d day and battle of the bulge or even anzio. very good.

@DimBeam1

7 жыл бұрын

They gonna appease the yank viewers with all that

@beninwarrior4579

5 жыл бұрын

@@DimBeam1 what? We fought in north africa too and in the pacific.

@DimBeam1

5 жыл бұрын

we. c'mon dude its not we. me and you weren't there, lets get that bit right first.

@ericcarlson3746

5 жыл бұрын

agreed- this guy is a great storyteller

@TARKIN1100

5 жыл бұрын

@@DimBeam1 Isn't the narative or this that north africa/italy was pointless? I would aruge that they are arguing that the Americans where kind of idiots. This seams rather dismissive of the US In most places. All that being said, this is well made... But it seams to have to much of a agenda.

Hmm I a bit puzzled by this series' implications. I think everybody can agree the defense of North Africa - particularly towards Egypt and Suez Canal - was pretty vital. They managed to repel the Italians but when the Wehrmacht's Afrika Korps got involved, it became real serious business. Since the Allied troops have already been amassed at North Africa once they kick the Axis out, it did make sense to me that having dominance in the Mediterranean sea lanes by way of pushing up Sicily and Italy was a good thing. But then yes, of course, _how far up North_ to conquer can be questionable. Separately, the presentation seems to ignore the protracted and _massive_ European air campaign with the US and UK pounding the German industry day and night to _wear down the war machine and Luftwaffe_ . (To this day I'm still amazed the US 8th Air Force had more airmen killed than all the US Marines campaigns throughout the Pacific.) Those two years saw the development and adoption of so many new technologies and combat vehicles that provided an edge over Germany by the time of 1944 Operation Overlord. The Luftwaffe at that point was on full defensive and couldn't put up a proper fight against the Normandy onslaught.

@nicholasconder4703

2 жыл бұрын

The capture of Sicily and southern Italy were important, as they further secured the Allied supply lines through the Mediterranean, and provided airfields for attacking the Romanian oil fields and factories in Austria, both of which were more or less out of range of the bombers based in the UK. Then again, given how far the Russians advanced by the spring of 1945, pushing the Allied armies all the way to the Alps prevented northern Italy being occupied by the Russians. In fact in spring 1945 it was a race between the British Armies under Freyberg and Tito's Partisans as to who would retain the port city of Trieste after the war. So there were other reasons apart from the purely military ones for continuing the campaign.

@badlaamaurukehu

2 жыл бұрын

Tunisia

Fantastic viewing! Very informative

Thanks for the insights into the machinations behind some of the biggest decisions of the war.

My uncle was a section chief in a 155 battery. Started in N Africa and all the way up the Italian boot and fellow crewmen fell to counter battery fire he remained unscathed. Came home and drank himself to death at the age of 54.

@bossofbosporus7624

3 жыл бұрын

Sad to hear. Easy to understand. War wrecks people's psyche.

In light of the Cold War that followed, Churchill was not far off on his approach to the war and FDR didn't seem to look into the future all that much. His successor Harry S. Truman had to deal with the problems FDR left behind.

@guymajor7103

2 жыл бұрын

He strictly did it to preserve whatever he could of the British empire! The fact that they landed at Anzio was a mistake and they should have landed further up the Italian peninsula!

Not sure which I enjoyed more, the nice and analytical war documentary or all the great metaphors and wordplays!

I learned so much from this epic production thank you very much

" and on this historic day, i felt like vomiting" - cuts to fountain with water spouting out of a mans mouth- brilliant.

Very good presentation, it does concentrate on the decisions taken by the various wartime leaders. One is tempted to say that Churchill's leadership left a lot to be desired, but then so did Stalin's, and France was defeated despite having a larger army than Germany. I think one must conclude that in wars many mistakes are made on all sides.

@sinjimsmythe9577

3 жыл бұрын

I think many people might think “left a lot to be desired” when assessing the leadership of Stalin is something of an understatement 😂

@tonyromano6220

3 жыл бұрын

Yep, complete fuckups most were.

@tonyromano6220

3 жыл бұрын

@@sinjimsmythe9577 Stalin was brutal.

@tommcguire6472

3 жыл бұрын

Stalin won by taking g the best men that Russia had and stuffing them into the barrels of German guns no strategy needed ,27 million (the latest count by Russian researchers) vs.4 million for Germany (and that's including the western front).Roughly 2%of all Russians Ukrainians and belarussian aged 18-27 came home

@Cielazule

2 жыл бұрын

im so young i can't even understand this comment

Excellent and very well presented documentary ! 5 ⭐️

We don't need the "History Channel" to air these kinds of fact-based documentary programs anymore. This Channel, along with a few others, have supplanted their credibility and therefore usefulness entirely. 👍

This was great. I read a the book "Anzio" a while ago which very much supports what's said here. Churchill over-reached and underachieved in his Italy campaign. Ignoring the advice of sound military minds both British and American in favour of his own ideas. It's easy to say that in hindsight it helped arm the Allies with experience for Overlord like it was some even grander strategy, but that was not Churchill's intention.

@dovetonsturdee7033

2 жыл бұрын

Really? What advice did these British & American military minds give? Marshall's enthusiasm for a 1942 landing in France, perhaps?

@bigwoody4704

2 ай бұрын

Matched only by Monty/Brooke's enthusiasm for leaving it. There was hardly a "Atlantic Wall" propganda the Brits fell for. Sure there were troops stationed there but only a handful of bunkers. That Goebbles had his publicity barkers take pictures from many different angles of existing structures thus portraying it as a massive complex of many different structures. Rommel was aghast when he arrived in late December '43 a how woefully vacant & ill prepared it actually was.And set out immediately on the gigantic task of actually fortifying it. The Italian debcale was all winston's pipe dream

Not convinced by this presentation. The defence of the Suez Canal and the opening up of the Mediterranean for shipping were incredibly important. I understood that British military strategy was determined by the British Chiefs of Staff, chaired by General Alan Brooke ....his diaries are a must read, and shed light on that strategy and internal battles with some of Churchill's wilder ideas. With the entry of the US , Allied strategy was determined by the JOINT Chiefs of Staff, at sometimes stormy conferences referred to. If a cross channel invasion had taken place in 42 or 43, as desired by Gen Marshall, why did Eisenhower prepare a speech in case D-Day had been a failure ?? This was Churchills fear.

@kajamix

7 жыл бұрын

Hitler was after the oil of the middle East as also the oil of the Caspian Sea. So Egypt had to be defended at all costs. At the same time Churchill wanted Overlord and he certainly did not want either the nazis to occupy Europe or Stalin to reach France from the east. But he was overcautious about it. In the end if Hitler had listened to Rommel and positioned his forces closer to the beaches rather than around Paris, what could have happened ? We will never know.

@minnowpd

5 жыл бұрын

The USA was reluctant to have our soldiers serve under foreign command. General Pershing made it a sticking point in WW1. In Italy we were under Alexander from early January '44 ,, soon after was the disaster of the Rapido and Monte Cassino proved us right..

@alastairbarkley6572

5 жыл бұрын

@@minnowpd At Kasserine, US troops were under American command. To stop the rout, a Brit general had to take charge. Pershing? American troops in the 1918 Spring Offensive were under French High Command.

@MrAkaacer

3 жыл бұрын

@@kajamix Getting the oil back from the middle-east would've been problematic, especially since Britain held Malta. If Rommel placed his tanks near the beaches there would be more allied casualty, but the Allies would've won anyway. The allies had complete air superiority. If the Germans did stop D-Day, then they would've been nuked a year later.

@bigwoody4704

3 жыл бұрын

Alastair The GIs never got routed on the scale of a Dunkirk or Singapore - NEVER

Beautiful work.

Excellent series. I will watch them all.

Thank you for posting. The African campaign had never made much sense to me beyond protecting the Suez Canal. This was a very well done and enlightening show.

@johnemerson1363

3 жыл бұрын

Actually, if we had not fought the Germans in North Africa and Sicily, we would NOT have had combat veterans to show the green kids at Normandy. Eveyone would have been green.

@heritage_isimportant7297

2 жыл бұрын

Britain got much of its oil from the Persian Gulf which was shipped via the Suez Canal Hence the reason why Britain had to win the North African Campaign.

@flodjod

2 жыл бұрын

in 1 word like under bush OIL

@edmundscycles1

2 жыл бұрын

@@flodjod not really. To weaken the German and Italian armies which were finite you have to spread them as thin as possible . Creating an overstretched logistics, man power while also gathering intelligence on equipment and tactics deployed by your enemy .

It's fascinating how victory over your allies is just as important as that over your enemies.

The South Africans who fought and died so bravely for the allies are never mentioned. Why is this?

@cefb8923

5 жыл бұрын

Because they do not have time to mention every single country that fought especially in such few numbers. Nobody is looking down on the other Allies that served.. if that what you're getting at.

@raydematio7585

5 жыл бұрын

No one mentioned the Trinidadian either

@creekwalker62

5 жыл бұрын

Many countries fought in ww2. South Africa was just one of dozens.

@gordonchadney9337

4 жыл бұрын

Canada rarely mentioned as well! Not really a big deal!! Everyone that matters know!

@arthurfekumo6094

4 жыл бұрын

West Africans also fought on many fronts, in the Royal British Frontier Force. My father was a soldier who contributed his services in Burma, and my uncle also served in the Egyptian front. But they're rarely mentioned.

This presentation is distorted by disconnecting the actual outcome from the real foundations. Suppose that Operation Overlord had been undertaken earlier, in 1942 or 1943, without building sufficient strength and readiness to make the eventual channel crossing secure? Churchill's misgivings would not have been misplaced. History is littered with failures to invade Britain successfully across the English Channel from Europe. Julius Caesar despite several "landings" was ultimately defeated and driven out of Britain in 54 BC, on the third occasion almost placing his entire empire in peril, being attacked by the Gauls on his retreat back into Europe. The English saw off the invasion of the King of Norway in 1066 at the Battle of Stamford Bridge. One of greatest naval fleets ever assembled, the Spanish Armada, failed to land a single soldier on British soil in 1588, being met by the English Navy in the Channel, and finished off by adverse tides and weather. A large part of the fleet ended up wrecked on the western coast of Ireland as they made their retreat back to Spain around the north of Scotland and Ireland, and deep out into the Atlantic Ocean, being denied a retreat by turning their ships around within the Channel confines. Churchill, a Briton and historian was well aware of the history of ill-prepared, and failed Channel crossings. The prospect of losing the entire British Army to attack by the Lutwaffe and U-Boat activity in the evacuation from Dunkirk, just two years earlier, was salutary to Churchill's thinking. But worse. Suppose that if Operation Overlord had faltered without beforehand securing Northern Africa, the Mediterranean, and the Suez for the Allies? And Italy not taken out of the war? Churchill's greatest fears would then be surely realised. With the Axis Powers still at large in the Mediterranean, and with Italy intact, if Operation Overlord had faltered then Germany would assuredly have moved to seize the Suez and to cut off Britain from its eastern empire, and Australia and New Zealand. German interests were very different from those of the Western Allies. Which meant that there could be far worse. The Axis Powers would have the power to mount an assault on the Caucasus Oil fields, denied to them by the Soviets to the North of the Caucasus, at the Battle of Stalingrad: by way of an assault upon those very same oil fields from the South, through Turkey or the Middle East. Turkey, an ally of Germany in the First World, was no friend of either the Russians, or of Churchill, and had at all cost, to be kept out of the war. If Turkey saw the prospect of German success by way of Germany gaining control of the Caucasus Oil Fields, and Italy still sharing in Axis Power, then Turkey may well have thrown their lot in with the Germans. Turkey would have had to do zero heavy lifting. Not lift a single finger in actual combat. Just let the Germans in. The Germans may well have been able to secure the oil fields without a single battle except to secure the occupation of the oil fields themselves. What Turkey may do was always critical in Churchill's thinking. Hence his pre-occupation with the security of the Mediterranean, keeping Turkey neutral, and with what was happening in the East. And considerable British energies were being consumed by the war taking place in the East. If British Army forces had not secured control of Iran against forces sympathetic to the Axis in that Eastern country in 1943, then the Tehran Conference of late 1943, between Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill may never have taken place, at least not where and when it did. It was at this conference that the real political foundations were laid for the actual execution of Operation Overlord with each of the Allies, in each others presence together for the first time, able to see the bigger picture from each other's view. The Soviet could be reassured the reasons for the best time for a Channel crossing and the opening of the "Second Front" would be in the Spring of 1944. It was at this conference that the Soviet was able to reassure the US and Britain that the Soviet would assist the foreboding channel crossing by unleashing the full weight of its military power to coincide with the critical cross-channel landing. And this is exactly what the Soviet did once it was confirmed that the channel crossing had really taken place: by unleashing the full might of the Soviet in Operation Bagration on 22 June 1944, the momentum unleashed by the dual assaults, and the meticulous planning by the Soviet to coincide with Operation Overlord, carrying the Soviet forces to raise the Victory Flag on the Reichstag on 9 May 1945. Far from Churchill’s focus on the Mediterranean Campaigns being an expression of weakness. Churchill’s focus was far wider than he is given credit. Churchill saw the war as a battle for the Security of Mankind, not just the British Empire. He saw the world through very British Empire eyes, sometimes blinkering his vision, but giving him a wider vision than the very vast majority of his contemporaries on the planet. He was wise enough and smart enough to realise that Britain and her Empire may not be assured of Victory on their own That would be a disaster, not merely for the British Empire, but for the future of Mankind itself. The conflict was Global. Churchill arrested it exactly where and when he could. Sometimes he was impetuous. But his thinking was always strategic. Why he was so earnest to call in aid the USA and to set aside personal misgivings of the Soviet to secure the Victory. Churchill laid the foundations for Victory in the War. That is exactly what he set out to do. And exactly what he did. And exactly what he accomplished. That is strength. Not weakness.

@vivians9392

5 жыл бұрын

That, sir, is not so much strength, as it was cunning on the part of Churchill.

@johnnyhoops3991

5 жыл бұрын

@@vivians9392 Why? Why does an ulterior motive have to be attributed to everything a statesman does? Churchill was cunning. Stalin was cunning. Roosevelt was cunning. Each of them did things which appeared to be ulterior to each of the others. Each of them got partly what they wanted. Each of them lost, or failed to acquire something that they wanted, They each had their own interests. Churchill, Stalin and Roosevelt each contributed to the Victory. The architect of the foundations of that Victory was Churchill, who with the strong support of Neville Chamberlain escalated the war against Germany as much as he was able, moved quickly to recognise the Soviet as an Ally as soon as Germany attacked the Soviet, even though Churchill loathed and despised the Soviet leadership and principle, and worked to cultivate the relationship with the USA that meant, despite the very real difference between British interest and American sentiment, the two formed a bond that paved the way for future friendship, and more strategically, secured the Victory. Call that cunning if you will. I call it master statesmanship under enormous duress.

@johnnyhoops3991

4 жыл бұрын

@@pearly872 Which part do you think I am joking about?

@peterengel7885

3 жыл бұрын

Churchill is under rated as a strategist. My reference is after Pearl Harbor he warned America not to separate what was left of the American Navy and allow the Japanese to piecemeal it . The Japanese invaded the Aleutian Islands to split the American Navy. Being a Naval strategist was his strength not land war.

@jaymorris6951

2 жыл бұрын

Well said

Of all of the British Empire's competitors, America was the clear winner. This vid and David Reynold's gets it.

David Reynolds is amazing in these documentaries

This is a very interesting documentary. Many thanks.

Excellent visuals and very illuminating back story.

My great grandfather and his brothers fought in North Africa and Italy and then went to Normandy as a reinforcement and fought to Germany

No consideration is given to how many resources Germany devoted to the N. African and Italian campaigns that would have otherwise been available to the eastern front.

@thevettegetsitwett

5 жыл бұрын

Germany deployed 90% of its Military & resources to the East. Trust me they were far less concerned with the small amount of troops in Italy. Not to mention Germany had to protect its Oil in Romania & Food & minerals in the Ukraine. No matter what the other Allies did Germany would focus on the USSR for multiple reasons. Look at how many Russians the Germans killed compared the other allies. Germany seen the USSR as its main enemy and couldn't understand why the world wouldn't just let them wipe them off the map. Its Ironic right after the war ended the Allies & Soviets would square off immediately in the Cold War.

@p51mustang24

5 жыл бұрын

Just hoping that starts to put things into perspective. The propaganda of ww2 still lingers heavily. The war wasn't good vs evil, it was countries slugging it out over opposing interests on the western front. On the eastern front, it was 2 ideologies at complete and total odds with each other.

@alastairbarkley6572

5 жыл бұрын

Eastern Front supplies took priority. The main reason Rommel lost. Shortages of everything, most acutely, fuel. Rommel's N Africa supplies were delivered courtesy of the Italian Navy. Since the Italian Navy Enigma had been broken by the Brits, the supply convoys were often intercepted and sunk.

Nicely done.

Another excellent video. 📻🙂

superb lecturer. I wish I had history professors like this back in my college days!

Nice sidestep of the French opposition for "Torch" landings.

@tommypatchell3342

5 жыл бұрын

Part of the French govt were ardent supporters of the Nazis esp in the Vichy south during ww2

@bossofbosporus7624

3 жыл бұрын

Those where not the French mentioned. there was an exile government

Hate the ads. Love the video.

Wheres the next part??? This was amazing!

The cut at 40:14 is perfection.

"It seemed like Tobruk all over again" This reference is to the 2nd siege of Tobruk, 1942. The first siege of 1941 was a complete success for the Australian and Indian infantry, as they held Mr Rommel out for the majority of the time , of 242 days. The second siege lasted two days, before the Africa Korps rolled the joint.

@PsilocybinCocktail

2 жыл бұрын

Er I think you'll find that in 1941 the British had a division there, the 70th. Not to mention the Polish Carpathian Brigade and some Czechs, too. And quite a few gunners from the Sherwood Rangers Yeomanry.

@awf6554

2 жыл бұрын

@@PsilocybinCocktail He did refer to infantry specifically, and for the majority of the time. Perfectly accurately.

@robertsowerby433

2 жыл бұрын

Two very different situations, after the siege was relieved almost all of the mines and defensive positions were lifted are removed to be used elsewhere. As such the troops finding themselves having to mount a hasty defence it was impossible to do more than throw out a thin defensive line in almost completely unfortified positions.

@petercastles5978

2 жыл бұрын

@@PsilocybinCocktail Yes, they were there, but mostly at the end of the siege. The Poles arrived roughly 5 months after the start, when the Australian 18 th Brigade was relieved. The 70th arrived roughly 7 months after the start, replacing most of the 9th, except the 2/13th Btn, that saw the siege through, to 242 days. At the start of the siege the infantry were mostly Australian, with the 18th Indian Dismounted Cavalry, taking it to Erwin Rommel up front, with British Arty (RHA), machine gunners etc, in support. The 9th were green troops , up against the Africa Korps, and Italians, and in a very short time having no armour, or planes to speak of, yet they still held out. The fact of this amazes me, but Australians are very tough troops, and they must have annoyed Mr Rommel no end!

thanks for share!!!

Love anything David Reyonolds does!!

Brilliantly reasoned and researched documentary. I see many unjustly negative comments but not one of them refutes the main argument of this documentary that the British policy in the Mediterranean was settled upon from a position of political and military weakness. That Churchill was against an invasion of France even in 1944. The narrator never questions the necessity of removing the Axis from the Mediterranean or the impossibility of a cross channel invasion until 1944. He is correctly explaining the politics behind these decisions.

@thevillaaston7811

2 жыл бұрын

'That Churchill was against an invasion of France even in 1944.' That is just conjecture. The contemporary documents do not bear this out.

I think this is being too critical of Britain at the time. They were simply not ready for an invasion of France and had they tried, they would have lost decisively. For the time being, pushing the Germans out of North Africa and eliminating Italy was the best they could contribute towards the war

@ALSmith-zz4yy

4 жыл бұрын

True. But when they finally were ready, in 1944, Churchill still didn't want to do it.

@AnthonyIlstonJones

3 жыл бұрын

@@pearly872 I think also for an aristocratic strategist it made more sense to starve out your enemy. Didn't matter to him how many people died, as long as they weren't his resources being destroyed. Morals are not even considered, except for the purposes of appearances. British aristocrats really did (and still do) consider themselves the natural inheritors of the Roman empire and all she stood for.

Extraordinarily well done.

What an eye-opener, ! This insightful account of the late Mederterainian chapter of WW2.

It's unfortunate that Roosevelt didn't understand the threat that a post-war Soviet Union would pose to the west. I tend to think the Brits could have successfully launched an independent invasion of Greece without affecting Overlord. However anything north of Greece would have been another story.

@rpm1796

3 жыл бұрын

His whole cabinet were Commie sympathizers.

Great documentary Uncle John.

Fascinating - great on the political maneurverings on of the leaders and Churchill's fears.

This is one worth watching.

Endlessly fascinating for whatever reason

This guy is one of the most credible and authoritative historian / presenters

What are the background music used in this documentary?

@peterkwaatfass5594

6 жыл бұрын

Bajki dla dzieci

Why wasn't Patton mentioned as a major player in North Africa and Italy, then France and Germany?

@dovetonsturdee7033

3 жыл бұрын

Probably because he wasn't a major player.

@bigwoody4704

2 ай бұрын

Try try using the address bar at the top of the page to relieve others of the responsibility for furthering your education Have you considered reading history? I'm sure it's offered at your secondary school there? Denial isn't a river in Egypt,Patton schooled the sordid sod bernard in Sicily, who did even less in Italy if one can imagine

@koyotekola6916

2 ай бұрын

@@bigwoody4704 Hmm, I like the way that you give advice. You actually give no information that's worth anything. I know people like you. Know it alls that actually know nothing. My advice to you is to go back to kindergarten and learn a few things, then graduate to the 1st grade.

If the German troops fighting Clark near Rome at the exact time of D-Day had been deployed near the coast of Normandy or anywhere close, fresh and fully equipped, there would have been a real chance of disaster on the allied landing beaches. The Italian campaign provided the strategic reduction of German forces in the north necessary to redress their temporary numerical superiority at the time of the allied landings.

@bryanbufton4358

2 жыл бұрын

Your so right,

I always understood that the Africa campaign was about the race to secure Middle East oil. Why did the Italian campaign not pincer off the top of Italy with a smaller threatening force from the south, rather than fighting their way all the way north through the mountains of the spine. The Gothic line, and Gustav line. Then race to Trieste to cut off the Russian advance.

@stephenarbon2227

2 жыл бұрын

They did make a landing south of Rome, presumably to cut Italy in half, but that didn't go very well, having the Germans on 3 sides.

Excellent analysis illustrating the genuine talents of Marshall and Eisenhower.

Churchill made sure the Russians did the heavy lifting.