Writing this on 21 Dec 2024, it's wonderful to report that alive and well are both Commodore Michael Clapp (93 in Feb 2025) and (now) Major General Julian Thompson (90 this year).

Enjoyed your book, General. The war? It seems like only yesterday. I had a grandstand view, on an LPD.

Great lecture, do wish some of these Americans would practice pronunciation a bit more though haha.

sadly the uk armed forces now cannot organise a drink in a brewery

Seven ships hit with with missiles that went straight through them without exploding due to pilots bad timing brits where very lucky could have been task force dead in the water there is no glory in this

The Falklands conflict us endlessly fascinating, this is a great lecture and is without a doubt one of the best pieces on the falklands war out there, its clear the lecturer is very knowledgeable on this subject.

I dislike the framing of the German defeat in world war 1 as this incredibly harsh unprecedented loss that the Germans correctly internalized. The treaty’s that ended world war 1 were par for the course with the one exception being the limits on the military. Which I think actual history shows you wouldn’t have lasted long anyways. Their pride more than anything is what was hurt. That and the fear of retribution for the terrible things they did later.

The bbc as usual does what it can against the British army. Absolute disgrace and nothing happened to them.

The war was to bolster the UK government and for political gain. Simply, it was an avoidable war that could have been resolved with one phonecall.

"Among high sex appeal " So good 👍

Can I say a few things about this that are incorrect and I take offence that the two guards battalion where palace guards and infantry second, true one of them had come off public duties but they were fully trained combat infantry the kit was substandard boots etc but not the men

Top notch presentation.

RN submarines always fly the Jolly Roger its tradition

Very telling Case Study. The question at 1:06:35 is very interesting and animating. While previously we really see the conditions of South Eastern Landing configurations, the remains of ships after strikes, and the near loss of Harriers on Atlantic Conveyor, this was costly, and then they want to talk about what would have happened if they lost Carriers. Just tally up the Names and Types of Ships and their particular equipment/capabilities, and then add the loss of any Air Support by removing 1 or Both of the only carriers, and you have a slow motion rout and slow starvation of the British. I say slow, as the conscript Argentine Defenders could not be expected to be very swift. The Admiralty were no dummies. The Carriers were the core hope in the conflict, the oxygen of the soldiers. Kenneth talks of the ships doing well in air defense, but the losses as we, as laity see things, and find human losses greatly unacceptable, see it look horrid. Such is war. I suppose had he been there, Wellington, after seeing all of the component challenges, and Martial as well as Logistic successes, would have said as he said of Waterloo: "It was a closely run thing," I am thankful for the resolution and perspective.

Margaret Thatcher was the last real leader we had. Love her or hate nobody could deny she didn't run away from making tough decisions. Since then, we have been governed by little more than middle managers. As I understand it the British government was all set to discuss sovereignty prior to the invasion which given the status of Argentina at that time was criminal. Had these islands been off the coast of Australia or NZ, a transfer of sovereignty would have been a natural progression but the arrival of the Argentinians as conquers and not liberators just underlines the illegitimacy of their territorial claims and the complete lack of affinity with the local people. As an aide its fascinating to see Joe Biden talking about the invasion and pledging his support for British sovereignty back in 82. When you look at the shuffling old man today it just brings home how long he has been involved in politics and how sharp he was in his prime.

So.. where is the UK general staff. Where is the USA general staff? Who has general staff? Who has the best general staff? Who won WWII?

The Brits are humble and reserved, which some people or nations might define as weak, they couldn't be further from the truth. We are not a jingoistic nation, we don't boast or brag, our strength is our inner character and mindset.

dye job or toupee?

I find it really amusing when our Argentinian friends refer to us as a bunch of colonialists and pirates whilst speaking in Spanish. 😂 irony not a big thing over there.

If you watch the Ben Fogle documentary on the 40th anniversary of the invasion John Nott, Thatchers Defence Secretary had stated, if the Falklands hadn’t been invaded, Thatcher would have given the Falklands to the Argentinians. There was intelligence given a year prior to the invasion that it was going to happen, read the book Beyond Endurance, by Captain Nick Barker, Captain of HMS Endurance. Look up Operation Journeyman 1977, similar thing happened. Few mentions: Sergeant Ian McKay was also awarded a VC in the same action as Colonel Jones Surgeon Commander(later Captain ) Rick Jolly, awarded one of Argentinas highest awards and granted permission to wear it with his British medals by the Queen. Read his book Red and Green Life saving Machine. Captain Rod Boswell, Mountain and Artic Warfare Cadre, now called Mountain Leaders ML’s, read his book, Mountain Commandos at war in the Falklands. Think the Argentina submarine taking a shot at a U.K. aircraft carrier was propaganda, the Argentine press had said HMS Hermes had been sunk

How do the Germans expect to FEED all these millions of Soviet prisoners? Oh...

At least Hitler could always brag to the Kaiser in Hell that he took France...

The good old days of Citino lectures when we didnt get 3 separate morons who love the sound of their own voices droning on about the days itinerary from an event that took place years ago and thanking half the world and god knows what else for 20 minutes... Not a single comment that has to say, "the actual lecture starts at 16:20." Just Dr. Citino. Talking. About the subject. Immediately.

Seamor?

2 important omissions. 1. The US did not support the British Task Force, as they thought that it would be impossible to reclaim the Falklands and they didn’t want to offend another ally in Argentina. 2. This included sharing intel as American planes were tracking all the movements in the South Atlantic. Had they shared that then it would have been doubtful that ships like Sheffield or Coventry would have been lost. Indeed, there was a lone voice in the US Senate, supporting the UK, and that was a young chap called Senator Biden…I wonder what happened to him?

To call the guards regiments 'palace guards' and 'secondary' was perhaps the low point of this talk.

Underestimate the pluck & spirit of the British at your peril 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

Like others you missed the opportunity to add many interesting anecdotes. The highest ranking officer that was killed during the war was Colonel H Jones who led from the front, he died whilst attacking an Argentine machine gun implacement. There was close quarter hand to hand fighting with British soldiers fixing bayonets and attacking the Argentine trenches. Whilst processing the Argentine soldiers at the end of the war before they went home they found one soldier who had a body in his bergen (rucksack). it turns out that it was his dead brother that he was taking home to his family.

We had the Royal Marines, the Paras and the Gurkhas; the Argentinians didn't stand a chance.

Meade’s criticism of Sheridan began when he blocked roads and didn’t support the army properly during the Wilderness campaign and then went off to beat the confederate cavalry and became famous for the death of Stuart while Meade felt he should have been scouting and screening the army.I also wonder as I believe Meade suffered from tuberculosis which might have killed him in’72that some physical difficulties might have manifested itself. After the war he was taken from a command position over the South to that of the north east nearer his home and whether that might have been health issues, certainly it was a kindness to bring him closer to home though his family could have moved with him. Meanwhile he stopped an Irish American attempt to invade Canada in’67.

It was a brilliant achievement by our forces. We'd just come out of the worst decade in our country's history. Our self confidence was shot to pieces. The Falklands gave us back our self confidence.

The beginning of the end started when Germany failed in the battle of Britain

Another highly inspiring song: kzbin.info/www/bejne/jonRY5-Mea2XfpIsi=R955njxaMSdVkJvP

Confederacy consisted of 7 states only in April of 1862, so Fort Sumter was important to test Lincoln government: 1. If Lincoln had not stepped strong (75 000 volounters (but Stephen Douglas would have asked for 200 000)), Union would have showed to be a weak country. 2. (this happened) If Lincoln had stepped strong (75 000 volounters) the border states (except for Delaware with 1.6% slaves) would have joined to the Confederacy. Only Arkansas, Tennessee, Virginia and North Carolina joined the Confederacy. So I think Confederacy could not wait, they wanted Fort Sumter for the border states. 3. However the leaders of the Confederacy lived in 1850 in their mind. Only Kentucky lost 5% of the slaves population between 1850 and 1860. Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote her book about Kentucky slaves whom transported to Deep South King Cotton territory. Missouri became pro unionist majority, Lincoln got 10% vote in Missouri and the Missouri slaves were only 9.7%. St Louis became big industrial city and strong prounionist. Maryland was the most important road and railroad connection between Washington and the North + only 12.7% slaves. Moreover Virginia lost West Virginia soon (4.6% slaves). The upper border states became less slavery dependent between 1850 and 1860. Missouri was special for the bleeding Kansas era to be West Missouri a buchwacker territory from 1854.

Col. Daddis gives a good sensible description and assessment of the U.S. war effort in Vietnam. I've read two of Daddis's books on the U.S. war in Vietnam _No Sure Victory_ and _Westmoreland's War_ and it was refreshing to get a clear, objective, thorough, and well-written description and assessment of that war free of political-military and nationalist bias. Col. Daddis just presents the facts and his assessment of those facts and leaves it to the reader to make up his or her own mind on the matter.

I would correct the speaker with what he said about the Scots Guards and Welsh Guards as “palace guards”. Both these are first line infantry regiments. The ceremonial duties are secondary, not the other way around. While not regarded as elite forces in the same way as Royal Marines or the Paras, they are good soldiers. However, their training as Guards Regiments was focussed on mechanized warfare in the European theatre, not yomping across featureless terrain and fighting in mountains. Nevertheless the Scots Guards acquitted themselves well, especially in the battle for Mount Tumbledown

17:09 The 31st of April. Cunning bastards.

Maybe I am a little pretentious but I don't think there was a turning point in World War II. I think that the Germans were losing at the very beginning. They did not have objectives that were attainable. Sure they had some short-term success but there was no way they could have ever done anything close to what Hitler stated goals were. Literally all of their early success was just postponing the inevitable

General turning point for Britain as a nation..

General Custer's previous incarnation was Benedict Arnold. Custer then reincarnated as General George Patton. 6 months after Patton's death, he was reincarnated as Donald Trump. You're welcome.

Trump will accomplish the same results…RESIST!

My understanding, from other lecturers more recently, is the claim that Russian commanders stood behind their lines to shoot anyone who tried to desert was mostly false, and that Enemy at the Gates gives the false impression it happened regularly. I don't know if this a matter of newer information altering our understanding, but that's the one thing I noted listening to this lecture.

Dang...the video has become legally blind in the last 17 years.

I think it's instructive that the 2 most successful members of the Axis powers (in terms of war fighting) - Germany and Japan - both treated the conflict as a matter of absolute life or absolute death. The whole "Go in with your shield or come out on it" mentality. But they both lost because they started out outnumbered, and in the bitter final days they were committing atrocities (aside from the ones on oppressed minorities) on their own people out of sheer, blind vanity and mythology. The side that resorts to cutting off its limbs and goes for broke or absolute annihilation - Germany with the cobbled-together forces of old men and young boys, and Japan with Kamikazes - loses because they've backed themselves up against a cliff's edge ideologically. The only ally that resembled such behavior was the Soviet military, but that was more about pure human numbers and Stalin's disregard for his own people, and maybe partly their fear of him.

I found this speaker to be generally humorous. I dislike the serious tone that history is often portrayed in.

Between him and Rob Citino there is enough eastern front Schlachtporn to keep us in business forever.

It wasn’t a War it was a ‘Conflict’ we never actually declared War. Also we removed the Junta for the Argentines and gave them democracy. What they did with it is their issue. L/Brd T Ward (SAM)

I was in the Royal Navy, when this happened the task force sailed on my birthday, a few of mates went down south, a few were on ships that were lost, they all came home fortunately. Losing was never an option. I joined a ship in 87, the Captain was the former Captain of the Conquerer, a real gentleman

I read this gentleman's book years ago. It is well worth reading. It should be a must read for all Military Officers and Government Minsters

7:44 - lol S Korea did not have a free fair election until the 1980s what is this guy talking about. The ROK's military was so unprepared because their leader was not trusted by the US not to start a war, and he used his military to execute anyone with communist sympathies. The opening of the Korean War makes so much more sense when you understand WHY there were no large supplies of heavy weapons in 1949. He knows his military stuff but he turns a blind eye to the material conditions that caused the war to start the way it did.