10 World War II Myths That You Believe Because of Hollywood - TopTenz Reaction

See the original - • 10 World War II Myths ...
The latest travel & meetup opportunities video - • Upcoming Tours and Mee...
See my new channel Stories of the Great War here - www.youtube.com/@Storiesofthe...
Support VTH on patreon: / vth
Follow me on instagram here - / vloggingthroughhistory
Follow VTH on Facebook here - profile.php?...
VTH Gaming - / thehistoryguy
VTH Extra - / @vthextra
VTH Originals - / @vthoriginals259
Check out the VTH Podcast
Spotify - open.spotify.com/show/2lMCaIT...
Apple - podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
#history #reaction

[@xenialafleur]

When the Vietnam draft was announced, my dad (who was single and not in college) immediately volunteered. He got to do his 2 years of service without going anywhere near Asia.

[@jarrettlowery2802]

My grandfather volunteered so he could get his citizenship in 73. He did a few courier runs then became a barber at camp Shelby.

[@Real_Jtizzle]

My grandfather was in barber school when he got his draft notice in 66. He was lucky and was assigned as a wheeled vehicle mechanic for the 7th army in Germany. He did his 2 years and became a doctor of ministry.

[@verb3614]

My first boss enlisted in the Coast Guard at 18 so he wouldn’t be sent anywhere near Vietnam.

[@faeembrugh]

I worked with a guy who had a similar experience as he spent his entire service in South Korea with 2nd Infantry.

[@Gruso57]

My grandfather was busy abandoning my grandmother and kids while sleeping around across the country

[@JeffKelly03]

I actually edited the script for this TopTenz video, so boy oh boy am I relieved that you approve of its overall accuracy!

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

Great job!

[@556m4]

Can you tell Simon to stop laying on his accent so thick ? His videos are actually highly unpalatable for myself and some of my friends because of it. A lot of the topics in the videos he presents are very interesting but once I see it’s him narrating I click off. And no I’m not trolling.

[@JeffKelly03]

@@556m4 Simon no longer does videos for the channels I work with, so I'm afraid I won't be any help there.

[@Spanish-wo9jk]

Simon's videos are good, but would be excellent if he gave a little effort to enunciation.

[@BobCassidy]

I find myself blocking channel after channel that he's involved in. His voice is a bit much and it's everywhere. ​@@556m4

[@halbarad6924]

On of my favorite fun facts is that Operation Barbarossa had twice as many horses as Napoleon’s invasion of Russia.

[@borismuller86]

Just the German Army had some 600,000 horses. That’s close to how many men Napoleon had in total (estimated at as many as 685,000).

[@davidhutchinson5233]

And they both failed. But how many had to die because of two men's unabated hubris.

[@selfdo]

And that was a problem, WHY? One trouble with the Soviet Union was its lack of PAVED roads. Germany's fleet of trucks was almost USELESS for Barbarossa; and it simply didn't have the industrial and logistical capability, and certainly not the FUEL, to put all their logistical support vehicles on TRACKS. And who would DRIVE those vehicles? Unlike America, the majority of German young men didn't know how to drive a car!

[@faithlesshound5621]

When more of our visuals of WWII come from Hollywood movies than photographs and films taken at the time, we are misled by the fact that the studios did not have hundreds of horses or many black actors. So we always see Germans in trucks and rarely see black soldiers. The Free French had a high proportion of black soldiers. The British army had almost two million Indians.

[@daniellysohirka4258]

@@faithlesshound5621 The indians won 15% of the Victoria Cross Medals, which is the most of all the Colonial Fighting forces, probably because their army was so big. But, the British took lots of their food and starved them out of course.

[@alexamerling79]

My favorite is that the "Wehrmacht was highly mechanized." I was surprised to learn that the Germans were still using horses even in Normandy and only a small fraction of the Heer was mechanized.

[@TheWinty]

i think that i read some article in the past that even czechoslovakians had better tanks in quality and even in numbers but they had simply none existing airforce so they surrendered, germans took their tanks and used them in battle against france.

[@warlordofbritannia]

@@TheWinty That’s actually only part of the story: Germany also made heavy use of Czech industry because it was simply more efficient than their own practices. Munich not only removed an important eastern ally from the board but also gave all their material and resources to Shitler.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

@@TheWinty "i think that i read some article in the past that even czechoslovakians had better tanks in quality and even in numbers but they had simply none existing airforce so they surrendered, germans took their tanks and used them in battle against france." After Chamberlain GAVE AWAY all of the Czech FORTIFICATIONS and completely ruined any chance of theirs to be able to defend themselves, yes they didn't really have much choice because all their pre-war planning was totally gone, all their logistics a complete mess and the German army APPEARED to be far stronger than it was. Qualitywise, Cz had more mature and reliable tanks, but they were not exactly "more powerful" or something. When the Cz tanks were obsolete, the Pz-IV was still in massproduction for a long time yet.

[@DIREWOLFx75]

"I was surprised to learn that the Germans were still using horses even in Normandy and only a small fraction of the Heer was mechanized." Yeah, only a very limited part of German forces were not still using horsedrawn wagons for supply train when the war started. Despite the fact that Germany had already years before compared how much people and effort was needed for logistics via various methods. Railroad logistics was by far the most effective of course, which is the only reason the German lack of mechanisation isn't more obvious, but once it comes to comparing truckbased to horsebased logistics, the difference is gigantic. I don't recall the specific ratio, but i think it was something like logistics via horse used up 60 times more manpower than truckbased. Sadly, the book i read didn't include their comparison with shipbased logistics, just mentioning that it was considered almost as good as railroad.

[@soundwavegamer2321]

There is an interesting story from D-Day involving a German officer. I forgot his name, but in his memoirs he wrote that After being captured and awaiting the Allie’s to off load their equipment so they could take the Germans back to England he watched as truck after truck drove off the boat. He went up to one of the American soldiers and asked him “Excuse me, but where are your horses?” With the American replying with a raised eyebrow “Horses?” It was then that the German realized the war was over.

[@vatsmith8759]

Midway, Stalingrad and El Alamein may have all played their parts but the official histories seem to ignore the fact that it was only after my dad was called up that the allies started winning.

[@faeembrugh]

With regard to rationing in the UK, my parents said the biggest loss to them as kids was sugar and sweets (AKA candy). Rather than getting some chocolate to take to school, they were given a carrot and, as porridge wasn't rationed, they ate a lot of that albeit with salt (!). Also, my father first remembers seeing a banana in 1946 but he had no idea how you went about eating one.

[@hiramnoone]

There was rationing in GB long into post war, yet none of that here in the States.

[@samuel10125]

It was also found the British population was extremely healthy which is interesting

[@Kanbei11]

@@samuel10125 In some cases healthier than before the war.

[@bengruenhagen1217]

@@Kanbei11 that’s very interesting

[@pete1942]

@@samuel10125As well as managing shortages, one of the purposes of rationing during the war was to ensure a fair distribution of healthy food across the population. It was essential to ensure the workforce was healthy to keep productivity high. Interestingly, a study conducted by Cambridge University in 1939 determined that Britain was capable of sustaining its population from the domestic food supply if necessary with a much stricter rationing system than the one that was implemented.

[@florianlipp5452]

23:40 "clean Wehrmacht": Some of the war crimes commited by the Wehrmacht on the Western front are maybe just your "run of the mill" war crimes committed by warring parties in any war. What REALLY stood out were the crimes committed on the Eastern front. Just one statistic: During "Barbarossa" the German army captured around 3 Mio. Soviet POW in 1941 alone. By January 1942, around 90% of them were dead. Just let that sink in! (The Germans maybe didn't deliberately kill these POW. But they were completely neglected: no food, no housing in freezing temperatures).

[@MrDwarfpitcher]

I remember that the WW2 KZbin channel series, the same from the Great War series, showed reports about Germans encircling and beating up Soviet forces, only to lack the manpower to actually catch them so they regularly walked through German lines back to their own. So the German units were combat effective, and that was more or less all they had going for them. It therefore does not suprise me in the least that they could not feed those POW's and neglected them, sometimes they literally did not even know they were even there.

[@mnemonicpie]

They did this deliberately. And what they did to civilians in the areas that were supposed to be protected by these soldiers... horrors beyond comprehension

[@deatman5843]

Yeah, it's a pretty big oversight for a video to discuss the "clean Wehrmacht" myth and not discuss the Nazis' policies in the east. How the German Army conducted itself in the East was quite different than the West. In the East, the Wehrmacht was instrumental in helping to carry out the Nazi's genocidal plan. They participated in the killing of Jews, civilians who were suspected partisans, and POWs. The Barbarossa Decree essentially made the German Army responsible for participating in a war of annihilation and genocide in the East, bluntly stating that while in Soviet territories, German soldiers were exempt from being prosecuted for "crimes against humanity" that would otherwise be punishable under German law. The Wehrmacht literally had gallons of blood on their hands, and the video honestly does the explanation of the myth of a disservice by glossing over a lot of it.

[@azorahai7837]

In Germanies defense, how do you expect an army of 3 million to feed and shelter equal number (and growing) of prisoners???

[@alecseusalec3418]

@@azorahai7837 Oh, the Nazis have come.

[@Macion-sm2ui]

22:47 Actually in Poland myth of clean Wehrmaht is also strong - even among people that survived war. My grandma always says "when Germans came in they were clean and disciplined, but when Russians came in first thing they did was rape of local girls". Even thought Wehrmaht commited war crimes in Poland it is remembered in public opinion as more civilised than other German formations and definitely more civilised than any Russian formation.

[@warlordofbritannia]

There’s a kernel of truth to that, isn’t there? German atrocities were more “civilized,” which is to say they were systematic and intentional; the Red Army just went through Poland having their way along the march.

[@Macion-sm2ui]

@@warlordofbritannia Soviet atrocities were both systematic and non systematic. Soviets since systematicly destroyed polish partisant forces, killed oposition polititians and landowners. And from the other side sovet army also commited many atrocities without any order.

[@warlordofbritannia]

@@Macion-sm2ui Oh right, I forgot about the demolishing of the Polish underground. I guess the point I should still stress is that Red Army atrocities were committed in a more chaotic manner while the Germans had a “cleaner” method of their own.

[@alexg3911]

@@warlordofbritannia Probably has alot to do with when some of the things happened. When Germany invaded Poland it was right at the beginning of the war and people where expecting a short campaign and alot of the attrocities, such as the Holocaust where kept highly secret, since most people didn't even know it happened until the Soviets stumbled upon the first camps to be freed in the middle of 1944. Whereas when the Soviets came to Poland it was battle scarred soldiers who had endured 4 years of war from a country with close to 25 million dead. Obviously I'm not in any way trying to excuse any of the Soviet war crimes, but I can imagine that the way in which they were commited was heavily influenced by this

[@ErenKruger-qx3dt]

@@alexg3911 Yeah like it was kinda expected that the Soviets would want revenge on the Germans who plundered and raped there lands

[@anathardayaldar]

6:40 German soldier standing on the saddle to shoot further. Simon meanwhile takling about "innovative strategies." French: WE CAN DO THAT???

[@johnhafford1970]

That soldier standing in his stirrups was boss

[@BoatsNhoes824]

@@johnhafford1970nazi sympathizer

[@erikschultz7166]

Prior to WW2 the only army that was totally mechanized was -- Britain.

[@MedicineMan55]

My favourite thing about Patton was how his self-promotion and bombast made him an ideal distraction during D-Day.

[@michaeldowson6988]

The Germans didn't have a high opinion of US troops though, just the firepower they could throw without limit. The British & Canadian troops in Normandy were meant to keep the top Panzer units occupied, while the US broke out and encircled the Germans at Falaise.

[@johnwilletts3984]

But still better that he was in command of a fictional army, rather than a real one at that stage, until the higher command felt he could be trusted.

[@johnwilletts3984]

But still better that he was in command of a fictional army, rather than a real one at that stage, until the higher command felt he could be trusted.

[@terpfen]

Patton hated speaking with the media and was perfectly happy to give credit to others. The idea that he was a headline-seeker comes from Omar Bradley's two memoirs and the Patton movie, which was based on Bradley's first memoir instead of Patton's own diaries and writings. As an example, Bradley wrote that Patton was seeking headlines in the first 2 weeks of August 1944 during the Avranches breakout, but Patton's presence in France was not permitted to be published until August 16. Credit for Patton's accomplishments thus went to Bradley, and neither man sought to correct that record. This idea that Patton was a glory-hound needs to die. He wanted proper recognition for his accomplishments, but wanted it from his friends and peers, not from the media.

[@michaeldowson6988]

MacArthur was a real publicity hound, and had a position as Army press liaison officer in Washington before the war. He knew how to use the press for his own advantage.@@terpfen

[@cheesecrackers3928]

No society ever said "Yay! Rationing!"

[@HT-io1eg]

Excellent reaction. You’re a true historian. I came to your videos through your Ypres series - my grandfather fought there and was catastrophically injured on the first day of Ypres III - and I enjoy your academic approach. Facts are facts. Data is data. Interpretation is context and history must always be reassessed after the victors have written the first draft

[@geophizz]

Regarding the myth of the "Clean weirtmacht", I've seen references that Churchill allowed 50,000 surrendering German soldiers in Norway to keep their weapons, as he wanted to turn them around and work with the Allies to take on the Soviets. FDR reportedly poured cold water on the idea, as he thought he understood Stalin better and wasn't as virulent an anti-communist as Churchill.

[@danpatterson8009]

I'd credit Churchill for being a better judge of character. FDR also kept shoveling aid to Chiang Kai-shek to fight the Japanese, despite numerous intelligence reports that he was instead stockpiling it to combat Mao's communists.

[@terminallumbago6465]

@@danpatterson8009He was called “Cash My Check” for a reason.

[@sugarkane4830]

Well seeing has now FDR was dead when the Germany capitulated in Norway. I doubt it.

[@johnford6967]

🎉You are right invading Russia when he did was a mistake born out the fact that even with initial success the front line commanders were aware they were losing a lot of their best trained troops-which could not be replaced. Russi

[@terminallumbago6465]

@@johnford6967 That was the thing with Germany invading Russia. The Soviets had seemingly unlimited numbers of soldiers and little regard for casualties, so they could keep sending more. Germany didn’t have as many (especially fighting on two fronts) so it couldn’t replace losses as easily.

[@bobkevenmaster2813]

I would love to see you commentate on Montemayor’s serious over the early battle in the Pacific during WW2. He does an amazing job conveying the importance of those battles and showing how and why commanders did what they did.

[@Maria_Erias]

Montemayor's videos are seriously some of the best out there for understanding the strategic and tactical situations.

[@gaffo7836]

@@Maria_Erias Agreed - love his one on Midway.

[@Kanbei11]

I'm surprised that Simon never even mentioned HE once despite all the history HE was making

[@TheMentorOfMomos]

HE is truly a God among humans, the way HE affected global history for millenia is a fact that must never be forgotten.

[@TheRiehlThing42]

I went to England in 2018, and my buddy and I went out to Dover Castle. Mainly, we wanted to see the White Cliffs, but the tour of the castle was great! Part of the tour, was to go down in the WWII bunkers they had, and the command center areas. They showed how they relayed information to different part of England to prepare them for the incoming German bombers. Was cool to actually be in the locations.

[@andrewthornber7783]

The biggest myth of the Battle of Britain was that we ( Britain) win it. It is more accurate to say we didn’t lose it. Fortunately as this prevented the Germans getting air superiority that was enough.

[@m2hmghb]

The one that pisses me off is that "we only dropped the nuke to scare the soviets". It's quite interesting how they teach that but not the casualty estimates for an invasion of the Japanese home islands.

[@TheLocalLt]

Who is “they”? I was certainly never taught anything of the sort, for example we had to write an essay taking a position and defending it on whether dropping the bomb was worth it vis-a-vis an invasion of Japan… the reaction of the Soviets was part of the equation but not at all central to the debate about Truman’s decision. It’s extremely cynical to suggest that America would have used a nuclear weapon simply to send a message, rather than out of military necessity, and any teacher pushing that myth is essentially perpetuating post-war Soviet propaganda - a narrative that Russia and China still push today…

[@m2hmghb]

I have heard it from several college grads. I do agree it's communist propafanda, but unfortunately that's what quite a few US colleges push@@TheLocalLt

[@TheMasterblah]

​@@TheLocalLtyeah, I don't know where they learned that from a teacher, though it's possible. I've only ever seen uneducated reactionaries say anything like that online.

[@m2hmghb]

Depends on the university. My sister was the first one I heard it from, but far from the last. I'm in New Jersey so I'm surrounded by a lot of left wing universities. @@TheMasterblah

[@Dragonite43]

I'm from NJ, and I've heard that argument too.@@m2hmghb

[@SimoKoivunen]

Personally I think in regards to Rommel, part of the reason his reputation and legend has continued on so long, is because he is one of few higher up officers that cannot really be heavily tied into the persecution involved with the Holocaust. And not to mention, any war crimes he may have committed, were so isolated or limited in capacity that they escape being taken note of.

[@selfdo]

Rommel's forces had the unenviable task to "win their hearts and minds" with respect to the local French (in Algeria and Tunisia), Arabs, and Berbers, they couldn't be distracted by unnecessarily fomenting a guerilla movement in North Africa as their supply situation was "hanging by a thread" in the BEST of times.

[@willerwin3201]

When my great grandfather, a farmer, used up his car’s gas ration, he walked 3 miles into town to turn in his tractor’s extra gas rations. I’m not saying that Simon was wrong, but there were a lot of folks pulling hard on the home front in WW2 America.

[@RandomDudeOne]

One myth propagated by the movie "Patton" I still hear is that German tanks were less prone to burn because they ran on diesel while allied tanks ran on gasoline. Completely untrue, German tanks ran on gasoline as well.

[@selfdo]

Indeed, even the borrowed M47 "Patton" tanks (how's that for coincidence?) of the Spanish Army reservists (there were also Spanish M41 "Walker Bulldogs" and M48 "Pattons" used in the film) still had the AVS-1790 V-12, air-cooled gasoline engine, featured in Jay Leno's "Tank Car", and re-done as the Blastolene Special. 810 screamin' ponies, and uses 65 quarts of engine oil! As for the propensity of a tank with a gasoline engine more flammable than a diesel vehicle, while intuitively that'd seem right, in practice, not so. The most common cause of a tank, when hit, "brewing up" is when the rounds for the main gun are touched off. Starting late in 1944, Shermans were produced and retrofitted "wet stowage" for the rounds for the main gun, which significantly cut down on fires and tank crew casualties, but all of them deployed in Northwest Europe ran on gasoline.

[@davidreichert9392]

I will give credit to the makers of film portrayal of The Battle of Britain for ensuring that it was shown that there were many non-British pilots involved. The scene with the Polish pilots was one of my favourites, and Christopher Plummer's character was very prominent, though apparently he had to insist on having Canadian insignia on his uniform.

[@stephenanthony6508]

I have one beef with that movie, the list of pilots at the end. One Israeli? Really!!! There was no Israel, so there couldn't be an Israeli pilot. Palestinian, yes, Israeli, NO. My maths teacher was a Palestinian Christian who fought with the British Palestinian forces in the dessert, he was a battlefield mechanic and served with British armoured. You can't say a pilot was from Israel, when Israel wasn't anywhere on a world map.

[@koalabrownie]

@@stephenanthony6508 Historical revisionism. And it doesn't stop there. The pilot in question, George E. Goodman, was reportedly raised as a Christian. his parents were married in a church called St. Luke's, but some Israeli historians claim he's Jewish.

[@kevinhealey6540]

One Vet told me that he was working in a factory in 41 before the war started. . He was making good money. He was called down to the draft board and he showed them his paperwork for being 4F (Registrant not qualified for military service). He lost 90% of his hearing in one ear and he had a bad arm. In 42 he was called back in and again showed them his paper work. He was told that his f4 status is being revoked and he's going in. But what would be done for him with his bad ear is, they would put him in the artillery. "With the bad ear, what difference does it make." He told me, "In those days, if you were breathing, you were going." In France he was switched into an infantry unit on the front line where survival chances were not too good.

[@ladyagnes9430]

My Uncle fought with Patton against Romel. He had great respect for Romel as a brilliant enemy. He was so proud to be fighting under Patton because he was such a great general. When I visited the D-Day memorial in VA....... when they got to talking about the decoy mission for it I could hear my uncle saying how amazing it was that he was in Patton's army they were so well respected. He said of course they would be the decoy version of D-Day because the Germans had so much respect and fear of patent that they would believe that his army would have to be the choice for a large invasion. He said the reputation made them the perfect decoy

[@patrickporter1864]

The chieftain has already shown that most German generals had never hear vhtof patton.

[@jonathanrennie1379]

Rommel was in hospital recovering from wounds from an air attack on his staff car so Patton never fought Rommel

[@slome815]

When Patton started his campaign in north africa at El Guettar Rommel had already left. Patton certainly thought he was fighting rommel right up untill Tunis, but in reality he was fighting Von Arnim. He also didn't fight rommel in France. So no, Patton didn't fight Rommel at any point in the war.

[@wallythewondercorncake8657]

One of the easiest ways to debunk the "clean Werhmacht" myth is the fact that the Germans began looking into making mass killings more efficient because they were having pretty high suicide rates from regular soldiers who just couldn't stand what they were doing to innocent civilians

[@selfdo]

ANOTHER myth. There was no noticeable cause of having to slaughter civilians, Jewish or otherwise, that was so bad that other execution methods had to be investigated and trialed. There were plenty of Polish and Ukrainian "Hiwis", whom, while they certainly had little regard for their (temporary) German masters, they needed no encouragement to murder Jews; and few seemed to have any compunctions about the grisly task. Or have you never heard of John Demjanjuk, though his participation in atrocities against Jews remains dubious. That the Mossad, one of the most highly-regarded intelligence and operative agencies ever, thought the existence of an "Ivan the Terrible" credible, speaks loudly that Eastern Europeans were employed to do the Nazi dirty work. After all, as many Germans as were SUITABLE for front-line duty needed to be there!

[@ThePeachtree69]

Ordinary Men is a must read for a deeper look into this horror.

[@forgottenfamily]

Re #9: I think it's worth noting that part of it was that the Germans concentrated 7 Panzer divisions in the Ardennes. It wasn't just that they sent tanks through an area thought to be unassailable, there was a considerable force concentration that went into making the plan work.

[@brianclark5882]

Right. The Germans concentrated their tanks, while the French split them up piecemeal among all the units. The latter turns out to be a terrible doctrine.

[@selfdo]

@@brianclark5882 The design of the bulk of French armor was for infantry support, hence, while usually quite well-armored and with decent firepower, were POKE SLOW. However, the French WERE in the process of raising "DCM" (armored) units and "DLM" (what the Germans termed "Light" division at the time), with faster tanks that were probably better than almost anything in the German tank park, like the Somua S35, which can be said to be like a "Baby Sherman". De Gaulle himself was in charge of one of these divisions and led a successful counter-attack in June 1940, in response to the German "Operation Red", which held up Guderian at Rethel for three days. The US Army made the "infantry tank" versus "tank division" argument MOOT by producing enough M4 Shermans for BOTH. In fact, the average tank component, at full-strength, of an US INFANTRY division, over 50 medium tanks, making them as strong in armor as, by 1945, most of the PANZER divisions left!

[@Revkor]

@@brianclark5882 yup Germany treated the tank like a replacement for the horse that made the difference. for every french tank seen there could be three or four german tanks that can enage it.

[@myviewmjs3632]

Good stuff, no surprises.your analysis made it much better.

[@stephenschroeder6567]

As both historian and anthropologist, it makes me sad to think about how much time and effort we, as a species, spend studying conflict and the conduct of physical wars and no where near enough time on how to stop having them. Might it be true there is no cure for stupid???

[@sanjivjhangiani3243]

It's not so simple. Wars are prevented by diplomacy, which involves a relatively small group of high-level officials talking to each other. More often than not, these efforts are successful, and the wars that would have happened don't. It is only when international relations break down that we have wars. When war does break out, it takes the efforts of a lot of people to win it. Hence, the interest.

[@TheGerudan]

The number of people in Germany that had experience with driving a vehicle actually hints to another difference: While the US already had mass production of cars (Model T being the most famous here obviously) in Germany there was pretty much no "mass production" of vehicles in large production lines yet. Most manufactures were still using older production methods with a smaller output numbers, so cars were simply a lot more expansive (that is were the KdF car was supposed to come in eventually). And the Germans produced a lot of their vehicles including tanks the same way. Their production numbers wouldn't ramp up until 1943, when Speer took over the armament department.

[@David-nx2vm]

My mom told me about rationing, and the black marketers. She said the big operators were the same criminals who were always around, they were just opportunists who went where the money was.

[@selfdo]

Many "atrocities" blamed on an army are often the work of criminals in uniform and/or deserters. There's only so much that Military Police and/or CID can do to stop small-time, petty crooks, psychopaths, and outright Mob hoods from still somehow plying their "trade". You take a Mafia "soldier", he gets his draft notice, and suddenly he's a buck private making $21/month, but his capo regime indeed WANTS him to serve, both to maintain their *ahem*, "prestige", but also to exploit opportunities among the troops to "earn".

[@pacldawson]

My father and his cousin enlisted in the army in early 1941. They asked the recruiter if they could stay together wherever they were eventually stationed, and the recruiter insisted they could. My father ended up in Tunisia and Italy. His cousin was stationed in Alaska. 😂

[@adamlike8107]

Hey Chris! Would love to see you check out some of Sean Mungers historical content. Lots of interesting watches there for sure he really goes in depth and I think the analysis and knowledge you would bring would make it super compelling. Keep up the great work!

[@threeminuteshate]

Love Munger. Great stuff.

[@corringhamdepot4434]

I recently watched the 1981 TV movie "The Bunker" for the first time in decades. Which reminded me of how Albert Speer had created the myth of the "Good Nazi" around himself. So even in 1981, Speer ends up being portrayed as the only really sane and reasonable person left in the Berlin bunker during the last days of Hitler.

[@KaiHenningsen]

You mean the guy whose architecture is pretty much synonymous with Nazi megalomania - at least to me growing up in Germany in the 1960-1979 time period? Also got 20 years in Nuremberg, so a saint he ain't.

[@kevinmoraghan2088]

The Coup against Hirohito was conducted by mid level officers not senior. 2 Majors and I believe 2 LTCs. But love the content keep it up. Agree about Russia but Americans were dead set against war in Europe after the fiasco at the end of WWI. So that is a tough one.

[@MrPotatoPoo]

your analysis always seems very fair. thank you.

[@allenwheatley1900]

Very good summation, impressed by your knowledge too.

[@iammattc1]

You know when Monty basically said HE won the Battle of the Bulge? The way the Americans felt at the time is the way the British feel about American films and TV series showing the Americans won the war on their own.

[@blazewardog]

It could be a bit of an inciting incident with directors/script writers remembering (consciously or not) that happening and then showing the opposite in their stories. Then after the first batch of movies they all just built on each other as "that's how it was".

[@koalabrownie]

Some American movies like U-571 even take credit for British (or allied) accomplishments.

[@aldbgbnkladg]

I also believe the non-aggression pact would have stayed for a bit, because of what I read a while back on the topic. I'm not sure how to retrieve the reference, but I learned that Staline was just not ready yet for war, therefore was willing to keep the pact active. They used to ship raw material to Germany for other goods and it helped the USSR. In fact, I learned they used to continue shipping long after Germany ended their exports to USSR in preparation for the war.

[@EllenbergW]

While this is true, what happens in 1942, 43 or 44, when Stalin _is_ ready? That's something rarely mentioned when stating: Attacking Russia was Germany's greatest mistake. Now, I'm not saying attacking the Soviets was a _good_ idea, but if war with them is inevitable, and all evidence points to that, attacking the Soviets in 1941 was probably the best shot the Germans had. The Russian army was still suffering from Stalin's purges of the military leadership, it was in the middle of refitting it's armored divisions (the T-34s and KV-1s had just started to come off the assembly lines) and the regime of the commissars was killing all initiative in the soviet leadership. Every year Germany waited would have allowed the Soviets to mitigate those disadvantages more and more. The greatest mistake Hitler made? IMO, probably the same that Japan made, going to war in the first place. Of course, Hitler being Hitler, _not_ going to war wasn't really an option...well, not in 1939, after he had declared the Versailles treaty null and void and snatched up Austria and the whole of Czechoslovakia without the Allies doing little more than protesting. In German, there is a saying: "Wehret den Anfängen", basically "beware of the beginnings". 1933 to 1939 is a prime example for this

[@jackprescott9652]

At that time nobody was really prepared for a long war. Hitler always thought that the Poland campain was going to end once USSR invaded Poland for the back. Why the Allies only declared war against Germany is a big mistery. But Hitler thought that once he defeated France, he could make peace with the British Empire so he could have 2 maybe 3 years of peace and get Germany stronger for an eventual clash against USSR, his real goal.

[@johnconnery1939]

Your analysis of these ww2 myths was simply wonderful. Thank you

[@alastairbarkley6572]

Before anyone says "the Empire was too remote to help 'Britain Alone", it needs to be said that the first Canadian troops arrived in Britain in December 1939 (allocated to shore defence and anti-amphibious operations), Australian Army units shortly after and there was a flood of recruits, mainly Canadian into the RAF (and subsequently the RCAF). Empire troops were also deployed early to protect Britain's vast, rich, Imperial territories in the far East, middle East and East Africa. The Empire was always far more powerful than Nazi-occupied Europe - wealth, manpower, natural resources etc wise. Invasion of the Home Island was never on the cards and Britain was never going to lose the war.

[@thecynicaloptimist1884]

Indeed. It's always worth remembering that, during the Battle of Britain, of the non-British pilots, 312 came from the Empire, 278 came from Allied nations, and 21 came from neutral countries (Ireland and the US). That's a pretty large number of non-native pilots fighting so early in the war.

[@glenchapman3899]

During Churchill's on the beaches speech said exactly that. He said that if somehow Britain fell, the empire would fight on until the final victory.

[@dlugo09]

To vastly oversimplify, I think the Russians were needed to convince the Japanese army to quit and the bombs convinced the government and civilians to quit. Potential History did a great timeline breakdown and explanation of it.

[@davidburroughs2244]

Those what if questions are always difficult to work out satisfactorially. Depending on the delay of capitulation, I wonder how many Japanese would have starved or sickened and died and died during the planned more bombing firebombings... and none of the arguments I have studied deal with the expected Japanese civillian and military deaths from invasion.

[@killgoretrout9000]

@@davidburroughs2244 I tend to think the USSR entering the war had more of an effect because for the Emperor the US might let him live the USSR would not. I don't blame Truman for dropping the bombs he should've done everything in his power to end the war before an invasion of the Japanese main islands. Okinawa gave just a bare taste of what a catastrophe an invasion would've been for the Allies and Japanese and that taste was bitter enough.

[@moneymastermind2698]

The first myth, I got disillusioned by a video game, Mafia 2. Vito Scaletta sneaking into the Office of Price Administration to steal gas ration stamps. Lol.

[@vonbennett8670]

The Soviet Union needed to be invaded. The Soviets were preparing for eventual war with Germany, although they felt it would be several years away. Germany's mistakes were fairly clear: 1) Lack of planning and preparation for a multi-year campaign. 2) Failure to completely mobilize their economy to a war footing in 1940-1941 (they didn't do so until 1943). 3) Failure to get their logistics house in order. 4) Failure to work with their Axis Allies to standardize military equipment, military production and military supply and training. 5) Failure to adapt a policy to be perceived as liberators instead of conquerors when they invaded; better help convince the population to fight with you (at least in a supportive role) instead of against you. (my top five)

[@moneymastermind2698]

I agree. I was an American who lived in England. They were not at all snotty around me. At least that was my experience.

[@richardfabacher3705]

Dad was stationed in England with the Army Air Corps. (812th Bombardment Squadron, 482nd Bombardment Group, Alconbury) He said once he was in a pub and a Brit "Tommy" recited the "3 problems with Yanks: Over paid, Over sexed, and Over here." Dad said he looked up, and smiled and said "Yep." The Brit cracked-up, proclaimed the Yank was "aight," and bought him a pint. He said the locals were great folks.

[@DANGMQ]

So on an episode of Brain Blaze (a KZbin channel in which Simon Whistler is a lot more relaxed than on his other channels) he did a segment on reaction videos. He said that he was fine with people reacting to his videos as long as the reactor adds more to the video that was left out. He did not like reactions in which the reactor adds nothing to the video.

[@thomasmoshier3920]

Registered Nurse here. Back in the early 1990’s I was working in a hospital and had an elderly patient who told me he was on General Patton’s personal staff. I asked him if Patton was as flamboyant as he was portrayed. He said his troops used to call him “Blood and Guts Patton.” He said, it was our “Blood” and his “Guts.” He said he would push his 3rd army as hard as any general. In the latter days of WWII as he pushed his army towards Berlin. They would pass thousands of German troops that had surrendered on the road side. Asked if he was worried about leaving so many German soldiers behind allied lines. Patton replied, “no, they’re the lucky ones. They get to live.” He was right.

[@normanriggs848]

Actually the "blood and guts" thing was wrong. The blood and guts Patton was referring to was THEIR (The enemies) blood and guts!

[@danielsantiagourtado3430]

Love your content 😊😊😊❤❤

[@audiofamilyutah]

The American Military was quite under mechanized when we entered the war also. Lest we forget.

[@selfdo]

The US Army, in the late 1930s, had been so strapped for funds that it conducted maneuvers with "tanks" made up of old Model T Fords, aka "Flivvers", with a "dummy tank" made up of cardboard and plywood! The drivers had to be cautioned to not drive TOO FAST as the Model Ts actually drove quite well over rough terrain, at times, out-pacing REAL tanks!

[@jessetorres8738]

Keep in mind, any WWII veteran stil alive in 2024 has to be at least 95 years old if they had turned 18 back in 1945.

[@saltzkruber732]

93, as a 16 year old could have lied about his age

[@Subutai_Khan]

@@saltzkruber732 There was a 12 year old who got into the US Navy too. An exception certainly and not the rule (He got lucky enough to sneak his papers by a dentist who told him to go home easily recognizing that his teeth were not fully developed.) but it happened back then for sure. The odds of those vets being alive is probably slimmer though given how fast they are dying off just based on numbers.

[@warlordofbritannia]

My granddad enlisted in the Navy in 1944 at 17, so he would be 97 today.

[@selfdo]

A check with the US Department of Veterans affairs should resolve how many WWII veterans are still alive...I believe the last figure was somewhat less than 50K.

[@catfishandbass8680]

There was undderaged men who lied about their age.

[@chrislyne377]

What I find amazing is that people always compare Operation Barbarossa to Napoleon's invasion in 1812, while completely forgetting the Treat of Brest Litokvsk in 1917; the Germans had already defeated Russia a little over 20s years previously and shown that it COULD be done. Now, what Hitler failed to appreciate was that the Soviet Union was a very different beast from Tsarist Russia and that lightning was probably not going to strike twice but nevertheless, it's worth remembering that victory in Russia was NOT unprecedented.

[@davidobriend8560]

Technically your right, but politics changed in Russia in 1917. They were losing to the Germans, but were not really beaten. Lenin needed to end the war bc civil war began.

[@chrislyne377]

@@davidobriend8560 Russia was soundly defeated both in the field and in the war. When the war causes society to collapse and revolution to end your war effort, that's a defeat. See: Germany in 1918.

[@davidobriend8560]

@@chrislyne377 true, I just think Russia did so poorly bc of Russia more than Germany. However Germany did have their number, Austria not so much. Kaiser Wilhelm sending Lenin back to russia with money was a Bismark level genius move.

[@oliversherman2414]

My least favourite myth about the war is that Germany "could have won" even though they really couldn't. They were overextended from the beginning and had all the world's most powerful nations against them

[@TheLocalLt]

I have issues with some of these “myths” and “debunkings” (most of which Chris addressed in his commentary) but I get that Simon is not a historian, he’s an entertainer who produces content on a wide variety of topics.

[@littlekuribohimposte]

I’m pretty sure he has writers in the dungeon who didn’t do their research

[@MaFo82]

As someone who's generally 'into history' I'm curious to what of his 10 points that you find to be wrong. Care to elaborate ?

[@FirestormX9]

Simon is no longer at Top Tenz either anymore.

[@TheLocalLt]

@@MaFo82​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠​⁠ ⁠Tbh Chris addressed just about all of them in his commentary. The biggest ones that stuck out to me were: • Both the myth and the debunking about Rommel - I’ve never heard the myth that Rommel was some sort of “anti-Nazi”, but I also wouldn’t say he was a “supporter” of Hitler. Both the myths about him, and the truth of his career, lie somewhere closer the middle. • The myth about Patton - I’ve never heard the myth that Patton was the American general most feared by the Germans, though it’s true he was a master of self-promotion. • The myth and debunking of Hitler’s worst mistake - the invasion of the Soviet Union was not a “mistake” per se, as the entire point of the war was for Germany to conquer the east. Rather than mentioning this in the debunking, it is taken for granted as an avoidable blunder and instead the case is made that declaring war on America was simply a bigger mistake.

[@chaos-zc9yt]

Also, he thinks that it was some sort of betrayal or negligence from Japan's part that they did not declare war on the Soviet Union while Germany did declare war on the US because of Japan. The truth is actually kinda simple and logical why these war declarations did or did not happen, and he would know that if he knew more about the Tripartite Pact. That wasn't like a full alliance like we fight together rather a clarification of spheres of influence. It also had a defensive clausule like the NATO 5. Article, which stated that if any country is attacked by another country, the other members have to declare war on the attacker too. But when you as a member state attack another country the other members don't have to join. So simple thing: it was Germany which attacked the Soviet Union and so the Japanese did not had to join in. On the other hand after Pearl Harbor the United States formally declared war on Japan. By the Tripartite Pact the other member states had to declare war on the US, so did Germany, but also Italy and even states which joined later in the Tripartite Pact like Hungary too (which is also a somewhat funny story because the US did not accept from them that war declaration citing German pressure). Anyway it was no betrayal from one party or stupid enthusiasm from the other party, they all just did what they were bound to do in accordance with that Pact and that's it. Besides in 1941 all members thought Germany will win the war in the Soviet Union soon anyway so after that no-one can stop them anymore and they will agree on a ceasefire with the US later anyway.

[@amisicro955]

Writing this to prevent people from saying they’re writing smth to prevent kids from saying first

[@torresmat10]

Always 3 steps ahead, this guy 😂

[@CallMeGrumps]

Hey mate, love the reactions you do and the extra context you give to the videos you cover. I would like you to cover The Fat Electrocutions video of sir major-general Percy Stanley Hobart arguably the father of the modern armoured corp, am a silent supporter from Australia , keep up with what your doing. Much love from Aus!

[@Eisbaer-xh9gx]

I’d love to hear your take on the Slapton Sands disaster

[@stevencoghill4323]

My mom's relative was a politician during the war. She grew to hate beef as a child because they had beef for dinner EVERY DAY during the war.

[@alexg3911]

I understand that, but hey, at least it's more than alot of other people had for dinner during the war

[@wallythewondercorncake8657]

Beef is fairly expensive as far as meat goes. Think you might be getting told some bullshit

[@ltmund]

Corned beef, not steak!

[@UsaSatsui]

I think at the very least, the atomic bombs gave Japan an *excuse* to surrender. Pride may stop you from giving up in the face of overwhelming odds, but I don't think anyone will blame you for surrendering when faced with such an awesome show of force.

[@warlordofbritannia]

The bombs got everyone but the diehards to agree on surrendering, while the Soviet invasion of Manchuria convinced most of the remaining diehards. Those who remained unconvinced either took part in the coup or were otherwise sidelined.

[@atomictacco]

The nukes were the cherry on top for Japan. Americans were getting within striking distance of mainland Japan, the Soviets declared war and began invading, and then to top it all off the Americans found a way to turn the sun into a weapon. It became impossible for Japanese leaders to believe they could win.

[@UsaSatsui]

@@atomictacco I should clarify what I mean. I feel like even with the odds so strongly against them, the Japanese would not have surrendered, since their culture considered it one of the most shameful things you could do. The atomic bomb gave them an out - it was a situation where it would have been stupid to *not* surrender.

[@atomictacco]

@@UsaSatsui Sure the bombs were an easy thing to point at and say "nope, no way are we fighting that" and no one is going to blame Japan for surrendering. But I find it hard to believe that no one in Japan saw the writing on the wall, especially after Germany fell and the Allies could help American in the Pacific. Obviously there were some that held on to their pride, which is why there was a coup when the Emperor decided to surrender, but there were probably an equal amount of troops and leadership members that saw the loss coming and wanted out of the war.

[@UsaSatsui]

I'd be surprised if anyone in Japan believed they could win even before the bombs dropped. But surrender was unthinkable to them. There were stories of Japanese soldiers found decades later in isolated areas who refused to believe Japan surrendered. I hate putting it this way because it kind of trivialized the lives lost, but the bombs gave them an out to actually surrender that they desperately needed.

[@bultaco44]

Nice balanced video. Rare these days. Thamks

[@wihistorybuff]

Love your insights

[@theranger6666]

You should watch potential historys video about why japans surrendered as he goes into detail about the two bombings and the russian invasion of Manchuria

[@torresmat10]

Regarding the Britain Standing Alone myth, do you think that if Germany had secured a successful foothold in a land invasion of the British Isles, that the US would've entered the war then, without the events of Pearl Harbor occurring?

[@VloggingThroughHistory]

It's certainly more likely.

[@iKvetch558]

It is hard to imagine the Germans being able to invade across the channel given the nearly nonexistent preparations that were made to prepare for any such operation. Of course, they would have had to win the Battle of Britain, and they were never ever even close to doing that...despite the widespread mythology that the RAF was "down to its last 150 fighters" that persists to this day in popular history sources.

[@przemekkozlowski7835]

In order for Germany to execute a successful invasion of Britain, it would require a massive shift in the military capabilities of the nations. Germany would have had to had destroyed both the RAF and the Royal Navy first. That would have probably required Germany to have built nuclear weapons first. The US would be very reluctant to enter the war at that point.

[@sharpspoon7371]

​@@iKvetch558Simply don't bomb civilian targets and keep the RAF disorganized? 🤷‍♂️

[@iKvetch558]

@@sharpspoon7371 Would not have made much difference. At the point the Luftwaffe switched to bombing cities, they were losing the battle, they just did not know it. The Abwehr estimated the British were down to 150 effective fighters, but the British really had 600 at that point...with hundreds more in crates ready to be assembled to make up for losses. The myth that the RAF was on its last legs was allowed to stand because it helped Churchill get more support from the USA.

[@blakekeithley3400]

Still have my mom’s rations books. She always talked about the drives she took part in as a kid. Lint drives , can drives etc.

[@davidhutchinson5233]

To really understand the impact of WWII on it's participants check out the 1946 John Huston film, "Let there be Light". Extremely well done and very much thought provoking for the time.

[@StephBer1]

Australian here, born and raised in Brisbane, the base of the US Allied forces during WW2. My mother was here during the war. The general consensus was that the US did help save Australia, and apan did have a half-hearted attempt to strike us directly in 1942. However, the Australian army generals and politicians loather General Douglas MacArthur. They felt he was an unbalanced, nervous Primadonna, who not only got many Australians killed in New Guinea but nearly single-handedly lost the war in the Pacific during that campaign. He had no combat experience, as opposed to the Australian generals, who saw combat in the Boer War. He never took advice and thought only his ideas would work, which they never did.

[@michaelstein7510]

MacArthur was definitely stubborn. He pissed off many colleagues in the US military and eventually President Truman.

[@Trebor74]

He also failed to ensure the defence line at Bataan was supplied properly prior to retreating there.

[@danz1182]

He had no combat experience is a flat out false statement. MacArthur was a veteran of a US incursion into Mexico in 1914 and had extensive command experience in WW1.

[@sailboat908]

​@@danz1182so, even less excuse for his military blunders.

[@robinharwood5044]

Australian junior officers had lots of recent battle experience from North Africa.

[@ethangorham17]

Okay, I feel compelled to push back on #2 a bit, and your assessment of it Chris. While, yes, there were other factors going into Japan's surrender than the atomic bombs (the firebombing campaigns, the Soviet invasion of Manchuria, the decimation of the IJN and the country's air forces, the resource war, the prospect of an Allied invasion of the Japanese home islands, etc.), the decisive factor going into the surrender was definitely the atomic bombs. Consistently, across testimonies militarily and culturally the spectrum over, the atomic bombs were viewed by Japan as the decisive factor in their empire's surrender. Moreover, it was Emperor Hirohito who explicitly stated in "The Acceptance" (the Hirohito Surrender Broadcast, where the word surrender is never mentioned), the best primary/first-person source we've got about the Japanese surrender itself, that the deciding factor in Japan's surrender was the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the prospect of further nuclear bombings. I will quote Wikipedia's translation of it in-full below, but it is more than worth noting two things: 1) the decision was namely Emperor Hirohito's decision-not Tojo's, not that of other commanders or civilian authorities-but Hirohito's; and 2) nowhere across "The Acceptance" are the other contributing factors to Japan's ultimate defeat even brought up. It is decidedly and unequivocally the atomic bombs that are highlighted as the source of Japan's ultimate capitulation. While you can argue that the other factors are implied, bear in mind also that 1) this was a speech not just to the allies at large, but to the Japanese public; and 2) that much of the Japanese public was unaware of the full extent of Japan's military setbacks (famously, the Battle of Midway and the defeat of Kido Butai was not well-known until after war's end because of an extensive and deep cover-up by the Kempeitai and those in power), and were actively being engaged by the authorities to resist the Allies until the bitter end (*gestures towards Okinawa and what that portended at the time*). As such, Simon Whistler saying, "It was clear by then to the most rabid warmongerer that the Americans would not quit and the Russians were coming," is just a statement loaded with an inaccurate coloring of events as they happened, particularly since, outside of top military officials, many of these "rabid warmongerers" were not even aware of the extent of Japan's setbacks against the Soviet Union in Manchuria, especially since the success of Operation Ichi-Go across 1944 had colored much of Japan's perception of its place in China as being sure-footed and well-prepared to meet their enemies. It's ironic that he mentions Hirohito's speech at the end, but for whatever reason only notes that it was the first time Hirohito was said to be heard by his people... I mean, in the American Civil War, in the winter/spring of 1860/1861, if the governments in the Confederate States put out their reasons for secession, wouldn't it be a major historical oversight to ignore what they put as their primary reason for secession into those documents? See the issue here? Beyond that, culturally, it's the atomic bombs that left their mark as the cause of Japanese surrender. I'm not talking western media here; I'm talking Japan. Across their own histories of the war, books, movies, TV shows, manga, and subsequent Godzilla attacks, it's the atomic bombs highlighted specifically across the multifaceted spectrum of their culture at-large from 1945 to now that have left the biggest mark upon Japan. It's overwhelming. While there's a point to be made about things like the minimization of the Soviets' contribution to the Japanese defeat or, particularly, the civilian casualties of the bombing campaigns over Japan, and an even greater point to be made for accuracy's sake about the extent contributions made by ALL the factors going into the Japanese surrender, it's ironically a myth to say that the atomic bombs had little to nothing to do with Japan's defeat. ~~~ Here is the text of Hirohito's "The Acceptance", as broadcast on August 15th, 1945, translated into English (from Wikipedia): TO OUR GOOD AND LOYAL SUBJECTS, After pondering deeply the general trends of the world and the actual conditions obtaining in our empire today, we[a] have decided to effect a settlement of the present situation by resorting to an extraordinary measure. We have ordered our government to communicate to the governments of the United States, Great Britain, China and the Soviet Union that our empire accepts the provisions of their joint declaration.[11] To strive for the common prosperity and happiness of all nations as well as the security and well-being of our subjects is the solemn obligation which has been handed down by our imperial ancestors and which lies close to our heart. Indeed, we declared war on America and Britain out of our sincere desire to ensure Japan's self-preservation and the stabilization of East Asia, it being far from our thought either to infringe upon the sovereignty of other nations or to embark upon territorial aggrandizement. But now the war has lasted for nearly four years. Despite the best that has been done by everyone - the gallant fighting of the military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of our servants of the state, and the devoted service of our one hundred million people - the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. MOREOVER, THE ENEMY HAS BEGIN TO EMPLOY A NEW AND MOST CRUEL BOMB, THE POWER OF WHICH TO DO DAMAGE IS, INDEED, INCALCULABLE, TAKING THE TOLL OF MANY INNOCENT LIVES. SHOULD WE CONTINUE TO FIGHT, NOT ONLY WOULD IT RESULT IN AN ULTIMATE COLLAPSE AND OBLITERATION OF THE JAPANESE NATION, BUT ALSO IT WOULD LEAD TO THE TOTAL EXTINCTION OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION. Such being the case, how are we to save the millions of our subjects, or to atone ourselves before the hallowed spirits of our imperial ancestors? This is the reason why we have ordered the acceptance of the provisions of the joint declaration of the powers. We cannot but express the deepest sense of regret to our allied nations of East Asia, who have consistently cooperated with the Empire towards the emancipation of East Asia. The thought of those officers and men as well as others who have fallen in the fields of battle, those who died at their posts of duty, or those who met with untimely death and all their bereaved families, pains our heart night and day. The welfare of the wounded and the war-sufferers, and of those who have lost their homes and livelihood, are the objects of our profound solicitude. The hardships and sufferings to which our nation is to be subjected hereafter will be certainly great. We are keenly aware of the inmost feelings of all of you, our subjects. However, it is according to the dictates of time and fate that We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is insufferable. Having been able to safeguard and maintain the Kokutai, We are always with you, our good and loyal subjects, relying upon your sincerity and integrity. Beware most strictly of any outbursts of emotion which may engender needless complications, or any fraternal contention and strife which may create confusion, lead you astray and cause you to lose the confidence of the world. Let the entire nation continue as one family from generation to generation, ever firm in its faith in the imperishability of its sacred land, and mindful of its heavy burden of responsibility, and of the long road before it. Unite your total strength, to be devoted to construction for the future. Cultivate the ways of rectitude, foster nobility of spirit, and work with resolution - so that you may enhance the innate glory of the imperial state and keep pace with the progress of the world. Tokyo, August 14, 1945 (20th year of Shōwa)

[@RubenJansen-jy6cv]

I ain't reading all that but I'm happy to hear that or sorry that happened too you

[@soupordave]

Just to add to your reply, we have the notes and minutes of the Japanese War Cabinet for the entire War, including the debates over what to do after the first attack on Hiroshima. We also have all the diplomatic traffic that was intercepted and only declassified in the last 20 years or so. We also had brief access to Soviet archives in the 90s before Putin came to power. These sources all agree with what @ethangorham17 has laid out. The "Peace Faction" in the Imperial Japanese government never had any power or authority to do anything until the actual surrender. They tried sending an unofficial envoy to feel out the Soviets about mediating a Peace with the US and UK, but neither the Soviet or Japanese officials that talked could really do anything. The Soviet ambassador knew Stalin was about to declare war on Japan, and the Japanese ambassador knew he had no authority to make any deal or negotiate because the Peace Faction that asked him to talk was not in charge. The transcriptions from the Japanese War Cabinet after Hiroshima reveal that they thought the USA was bluffing. All their scientific research into an atomic bomb (yes Japan had an atomic research project) made them think that building a bomb was impossible as there wasn't enough nuclear material in the world. They concluded that the USA only had enough uranium for one bomb and they were bluffing. It was only after the second bomb dropped on Nagasaki that they decided well maybe they do have more bombs available. It was absolutely the thought of nuclear annihilation that finally changed everyone's mind, but even then they could not make the decision themselves and the Emperor had to make it for them. Enter all the junior officers who had no idea how bad the war was going and their brief coup attempt. As for the threat the Soviets represented, the Japanese Army had basically stripped China and Manchuria of all their best units and equipment they could and brought it back to the Home Islands for the final defense. The Soviets were no threat to Japan. They had no amphibious lift ability, and the US and UK did not have enough to lend them and still be able to land their own troops. Also, the Japanese defense plans found after the war show they correctly guessed where the Allies would land their troops. Their strategy was to fight to the last man if needed to force some kind of "honorable" peace. Everyone who could hold a spear or rifle was to be drafted to fight. It was only the prospect of the entire country being destroyed by atomic bombs without any more Allied casualties to counterbalance their losses that forced their hand.

[@lewistaylor1965]

The best 'Battle of Britain' book, and I've read 30 or 40 is 'The most dangerous enemy' by Stephen Bungay...It throws all the myths out the window...I've read it several times...Excellent read

[@tet68vietnam72]

My father was a radio operator on a B-17 Flying Fortress bomber named "Home James" in deference to the pilot, Captain James Risher. They flew 33 missions over Nazi-occupied Europe and Germany. Having entered the war in June of 1944, they had the benefit of P-51 Mustang fighters which could escort them all the way to the target and back, as opposed to bombing missions earlier in the war when the bombers were on their own. My father didn't talk much about the war, but he did say often that the so-called precision daylight bombing strategy adopted by the 8th US Army Air Force was flawed.

[@hiramnoone]

Paratroopers got the glory, but being in the Glider Infantry was perhaps the most hazardous assignment a hapless troop could draw. In other words with no distinctive jump boots, cool hat badges or extra pay, being randomly selected to be towed by a C47 in a crowded very un airworthy fragile canvass and plywood winged birdcage, fully expected to crash rather than land... and if you survived it (as many understandably didn't) then to engage a hostile enemy who's been shooting at you all the way down. No surprise, that unlike their glamorous airborne counterparts, the paratroops who were all volunteers, the job drew very few willing souls, so had to be drafted into it, and the pilots assigned.

[@davidburroughs2244]

Yes, being one of the 3900 troops glider (and quick guns, and artillery, medical, ammunition, etc., of the follow-on landings by glidersw were in a fearful spot, but the glider troops losses were actually slight, and the cloud cover and fog made it extra difficult to land people where they intended. Plus, the USAAF was not in the habit of passing on as fit for avtive duty any pilots who were not. Eisenhower and others noted, after the counts were in, more landings were successful and losses were lower than expected, and,was all less than the plan predicted as acceptable losses.

[@koalabrownie]

Not sure the gliders were shot at all the way down. As I understand it, a few British gliders landed right beside their objectives and quickly overwhelmed the surprised defenders. Gliders have the advantage of forces concentrated on landing, and with their gear- whereas paratroopers would need to get organized first.

[@chrisvibz4753]

towed by an american plane with american gear

[@koalabrownie]

@@chrisvibz4753 British gliders were towed by RAF Halifax bombers, not American planes. The follow-up parachutists were likewise in British Albermarles. Look up Operation Tonga

[@brianjones7660]

in 1945 my late Father in Law Torgeir Fadum, was liberated at Moosburg POW camp by Patton's 3rd Armored. He was a bombardier on a B24 for 5 missions , then went down in CZ. He was on the front row on the day they were liberated as Patton passed in review of the troops, US and RAF. Yes he had a surprisingly high pitched voice, as everyone said afterward. But he also said his tanks spoke very loudly when needed. RIP Torgeir B. Fadum. Indeed the Greatest Generation. 👏

[@Horus9123]

I live in Poland and near my town there was a skirmish (poshly called a battle by my former history teacher) between a Polish cavalry unit and elements of a German partially motorized battalion. The cavalrymen attacked by surprise when the Germans were outside their vehicles, destroyed almost all of their wagons, motorbikes and guns and had to retreat. Unfortunately, the Poles had to leave their wounded soldiers behind. As revenge, the Germans murdered all the prisoners, burned the village where the skirmish took place and killed all its inhabitants who did not manage to escape. There were no SS, Gestapo or Einsatzgruppen bandits there, only "noble" Wehrmacht soldiers. Such things happened every day in Poland in September 1939 and certainly later in Belgium, the Netherlands and France, and even worse crimes were certainly committed by the Wehrmacht during the attack on the USSR.

[@selfdo]

Excellent point that the Heer could be just as brutal as the SS, easier when they're going up against those they deemed "Untermenschen". I'd say, though, they though different of the Home Army when it rose up at Warsaw in August of '44!

[@jace76ful]

The British sure sound spectacular while speaking. Nice video. lol

[@nightking0130]

That’s the thing that blew my mind most. Learning that for most of the war Germany was still using mostly horse drawn transportation instead of being fully mechanized really threw me off that idea that media displays Germany as this behemoth war machine that flattened everything in its path.

[@ChairmanMeow1]

Well they were both to be fair.

[@morganmcallister2001]

Well... people were used to the idea of horse drawn transportation being the norm. What was splashy and new and decisive about the German military was its mechanized divisions. It may not have been a large part of the Wehrmacht, but the part that was mechanized was the part that was having an outsized influence on the Wehrmacht's capabilities.

[@nightking0130]

@@morganmcallister2001 I get it but Hollywoods depiction of the Germans made them seem almost David vs Goliath with their giant panthers and tigers. I know these were more advanced tanks at the time but they hardly ever were used unlike panzer 2s and such whereas Hollywood the final fight always has a tiger and I get why.

[@ltmund]

​@@nightking0130Most footage from the time came from the nazis. They filmed their best in action. Their propaganda influenced our perspectives

[@annamariaisland1960]

I have also read a statement by a German defender in Normandy, who said that once he saw that the invasion forces had no horses, he knew Germany woud lose.

[@MaFo82]

On Hitlers invasion of the USSR it should be noted that he sort of had to do it after the failure to get Britain to sue for peace. Hitler much like Stalin was fully aware that the NAP was only temporary and they both viewed eachother with great distrust even while nominally being 'allied'. Hitler being a rabid anti-communist and Stalin having read Mein Kampf and thus knowing about Hitlers ambition to expand into the east would never be proper allies. The reason why Germany had to invade was due to serious shortages of key goods such as oil and food (yes, Germany was reliant on the USSR for grain imports). This is also why Hitler and his generals where at odds right from the start on the general strategy of Operation Barbarossa where Hitler viewed the occupation of Ukraine (the bread basket of the USSR) and the Caucasus (where almost all of the USSR:s oil was located) as the key strategic objectives. His generals wanted to drive for Moscow since they believed the USSR would collapse if the lost it's capital and in the end they got their wish with the failed Operation Typhoon.

[@alecseusalec3418]

The generals were generally right. Entire military infrastructure of the USSR was tied to Moscow and the loss of it meant complete chaos.

[@SubliminalFeels]

Hey man are you okay? You look tired. Cool video btw i learned more stuff thx :)

[@karlkristensen583]

If these are the worst examples of allied information campaigns taking liberties with the truth, as far as propaganda goes, the allied information campaigns of WW2 must be the most honest and sincere apparatus of this kind in history.

[@MiamiHeatClips]

Yeah idk what he’s talking about, I’ve never seen a WW2 Vet say he or she wasn’t proud to have served

[@Strathaczar]

Neither have I. But, you have to remember the context of that war. It was a justified war, first and foremost. Although we were helping the cause, until we were pulled in via Pearl Harbor, we had no intentions of fighting. As soon as we were attacked, it instantly made the nation in favor of the war. While I'm sure some conscripts weren't happy about serving, by the time the war was over, they were celebrated and lauded over. They were treated like kings and made to feel special for serving their country. That's a hell of a high to be thought so highly of. Now fast forward to Vietnam. It's an unpopular war, largely unjustified, conscripts did everything they could to get out of it, and those who did serve had to come home to people spitting in their faces and calling them baby killers. For years, until people were smartened up about the Vietnam War, I'm sure those people who served (which included my father) weren't too keen to come out and say they were proud to have served. For a lot of those men, it was a humiliation that dragged them further into depression and suicide, thinking even their own country had abandoned them. I honestly think it highly depends on the context of what the service person went through, to a certain extent. Being loved and praised for preserving Democracy, and for defeating tyranny, versus being labeled a baby killer and being spit on. Which would you prefer?

[@liarwithagun]

​​@@StrathaczarThe government and leadership of the US clearly had intentions of eventually joining WW2 at some point. Its why we were able to respond to the attack so quickly, and why they had slowly built up the armed foorces over the years without publizing it much. They were just waiting until public sentiment was in favor of it f before fully commiting out in the open.

[@alexg3911]

I don't think that argument really makes sense tbf. Where I live a certain amount of people that turn 18 get called for military service each year, and most of them that I know really didn't want to go when they were called but were proud and happy that they did. Just because you didn't want to go doesn't mean you're not proud of it after

[@Demonetization_Symbol]

I'm American, and I hate the "America saving the world" stereotype.

[@paleoph6168]

Ikr. It wants to save the world but can it save itself?

[@Disneymagic24]

Same. I’m American and while we were a a part of victories, it was just because of us

[@jeffslote9671]

We did. Like it or not we kept them in the fight long before we entered the war

[@vincentbergman4451]

I see it more as our industry when it comes to that. As far as the fighting/ combat I see it as an equal effort (except for the Soviets) The Pacific was 99% US

[@totalwartimelapses6359]

No one single nation did, however we shouldn't at all undermine America's role The problem is that usually stereotypical pro-American depictions of WW2 focus on D-day and the campaigns of 1944-45, because it's much "cooler" to show Americans beating Germans in battle, than it is to show bland charts of American economic aid Which was the major contribution America did for the allies against Germany D-day ended up being an operation to stop the Soviets from taking over all of Europe

[@grumblesa10]

Regarding the Brit views. By late 1943 the US WAS carrying the majority of the load in the ground war, AND the air war in WESTERN Europe. At the same time, providing a majority of the resources to keep the British population fed, and factories running. The Russians definitely were shouldering the burden of destroying the Wehrmacht. By an order of magnitude, the US was shouldering the burden in the Pacific. The Pacific is a theater that in my talks with Brits, they always seem to forget...

[@9999bigb]

Many of the German POWs ended up just staying in Canada. Including my high school AP math teacher. That was a man with some stories.

[@kidfox3971]

The biggest myth about Hitler is that he should have listened to his generals. His generals thought France was ready for war in 1936, that Britain would intervene against the annexation of Austria, that Blitzkrieg was a bad idea, and that the Allies would actually fight with Germany against the Soviets in 1945. As much as it's a meme from Downfall, in some instances, Hitler really did understand war and politics better than most of his generals. The war was just objectively unwinnable when America got involved, no matter what he did.

[@selfdo]

Hitler did have a rather uncanny grasp for details. Also, he DID "listen to his generals", and often THEY were WRONG also.

[@boxerboss5284]

The war was unwinnable when they lost there best troops at Stalingrad

[@lovelyhatter]

In Masters Of the Air the fight between the Brits & Americans feels placed just to make British pilots look bad. It really felt like it was inserted just to make the American pilots look superior to their British companions.

[@benjaminbuchanan7151]

I find it funny because the guy playing Lt. Biddick is a British actor😂.

[@hiramnoone]

@@benjaminbuchanan7151 As were half the Brothers in Band Of.

[@benjaminbuchanan7151]

@@hiramnoone I know, BoB just doesn’t have any scenes that I remember with Brits and Americans sparring with each other.

[@cdf3073]

Speilberg has past form on this, remember "Montgomery is overated" in Saving Private Ryan. Not that he wrote the script for Masters of the air, but he would have read it as an executive producer.

[@benjaminbuchanan7151]

@@cdf3073 correction he is actually Irish.

[@p.d.stanhope7088]

It was the reason for the creation of Volkswagen in 1937. A car for working class Germans, because of the war it was delayed until after the demise of Nazi Germany. While in the U.S. you had competition between Ford and Chevrolet that were developing streamlined and cost effective cars & trucks for the average Americans from 1908 to 1938. By WW2, most U.S. soldiers knew how to drive vehicles and transferred that talent to Jeeps, tanks, ambulances and trucks.

[@theStonerKid69]

Hey VTH, second time making a comment on one of these TopTenz reactions. I think you would really like to react to their video titled 'Top 10 Battles Won in Odd Ways and Against All Odds'. It has at least a few battles that I don't think I've heard you talk about before, and being a guy who likes the Civil War so much makes me think you'd like a video exclusively talking about battles and combat. Plus the video kind of skimps on a good amount of details, so getting your input would be awesome.

[@AGMarshallnz]

Stop being so good at what you do. I am playing the drinking game where you drink everytime you say something before the video does. I'm going to die over here mate

[@steveclarke6257]

9. The assertion that the German army won the battle for France because of it's own equipment and doctrine only tells half a story. The bit that is still very much neglected, was the lack of trust that French Interwar politicians had in it's military - even to a level of paranoia that they would be another "military coup" against them. It was this reason why France lacked adequate communications equipment and left them saddled with the WWI era Berthier carbines and the newer MAS36 (which whilst ok was designed as a weapon for colonial and reserve troops) rather than the Semi-auto MAS 38 which was planned for general issue. However this then ties into the "major" problem France has; it's population still had not recovered from WWI. This was why they wanted the firepower of new semi-auto weaponry, which was supposed to mitigate the fewer men, by giving them more effective firepower. Then there is the whole debacle of French doctrines, which goes with having men in charge being those whose sole major combat experience as junior officers is fighting in a muddy trench for 4 years (with the last two years being with troops who have mutined); so the part of the military sylabus where the idea of manoeuvre was completely "eaten by the dog ", something which explains the sole reliance on the Maginaux Line as your "only" plan for the next war. Therefore it may surprise you that I now praise one Charles de Gaulle, who was one of very few french officers who's dog had not eaten the manoeuvre sylabus, however his quite potent abilities as a divisional commander and had he had support of similar men could have saved France like it had been as the Battle of the Marne in 1914 .... unfortunately this never happened because the French had Maurice Gamelin in charge, who seemed to like sending orders to his field commanders by carrier pidgeon. Footnore: Unfortunately for France that de Gaule then translated his ability of being a good divisional commander into a man with a Messiah complex who has no real clue on how to be a consensus politician .....in that respect he has a similar level ability as one Douglas McArthur for his abilities in making friends and influencing others, such that by the end of the war he is almost loathed by his allies.

[@auerstadt06]

True. France was a very divided country politically when the war clouds were gathering. All they could agree on was the static Maginot Line.

[@selfdo]

The Maginot Line fostering a "defensive, sit-in-the-bunker-and-wait-for-Les Boches" doctrine is ALSO myth. In retrospect, it actually accomplished its REAL intent, which was to discourage crossing the common Franco-German frontier and driving through "Tankodrome" country in Lorraine, bearing down on Paris from the East, but also force any German attack to fall upon the Low Countries, bring them also into the war, whether they liked it or NOT. France in 1939-1940 had a very simple problem: LACK OF PERSONNEL. The young men it should have available for military service had already become "casualties" by "perishing" within the testicles of their would-be fathers at the Somme and/or Verdun. France simply couldn't raise masses of infantry, nor sacrifice them as "cannon fodder".

[@jamesloder8652]

*its own

[@Joseph-fi3tx]

Declaration of war on Soviet bigger mistake but Declaration of war on US was a final nail

[@Nostripe361]

I saw a video on the Japanese surrender where they had the same argument as you. Like the nukes was why the homeland surrendered but for many troops in foreign lands were more worried about the Soviet invasion

[@claregale9011]

Im a proud brit and what british civilians sacrificed during the war for victory was admirable . As well as being bombed night after night must have been frightening .

[@hiramnoone]

Many civilians suffering the same PTSD from the Blitz as front line troops.

[@jeffslote9671]

Anyone who doesn’t believe that America is the only the reason the USSR and the UK we’re able to stay in the fight is flat out wrong. The Soviet military were dependent on American food and supplies. The UK was dependent on US money just like in the first world war

[@cassandra2445]

Vlogging through history and Mr terry history are my two favorite reaction channels for more knowledge

[@thomastrinkle2294]

It wasn’t just tactics. The French had serious failures to adapt to modern technology, in particular radios. The French were still relying on signal flags for their tanks and generals issued orders with couriers.

[@phantomtitan9792]

Interesting video

[@oldeskul]

My father wholeheartedly believed that the Luftwaffe was superior to the RAF. He honestly believed that the only thing that saved the RAF was the Blitz. He also believed that Germany's biggest mistake was not focusing down the USSR first before focusing on the UK. I brought up to him that during the Battle of Britain, every German pilot that was forced to ditch or bailout was a pilot that spent the rest of the war in a POW camp. I also brought up to him that the mistake Hitler made when invading Russia was the same mistake Napoleon made, they both grossly underestimated how much space the Russian military was willing to give up and how many lives Russian commanders were willing to throw at an enemy just to slow down and even stall any invasion until the fall rainy season, when the entire countryside turned into a quagmire, then dig in their heels and brace until winter hit, then bring up the Siberian reserves. They did it against Napoleon, they did it against Kaiser Wilhelm, so why wouldn't they use it against Hitler? If you've got the space and you've got the numbers, then it makes sense to do fighting retreats and delaying actions, forcing the enemy to stretch their supply lines out and expend their momentum, until things turn in your favor to hold the line and punch back hard.

[@garywheeler7039]

Hitler in an audio recording when he didn't know the mic was still on in a Scandinavian country admitted that historically armies did not fight in the winter (when the Soviets had the upper hand), and that it was unprecidented tat the Soviets could produce tens of thousands (35k?) tanks!

[@brucenorman8904]

The draft registration card shown appears to be that of musician "leadbelly".

[@thefoss5387]

On #8 Conscription. The visual of a draft registration was a famous person. Huddie Ledbetter, serial number U2214, is better known to history as 'Leadbelly', a famous blues man and a convicted murderer. Just some trivia that I found interesting.

[@scottjackson1420]

All I can speak of (regarding enlistment in WWII) is that I had four uncles on my two sides of the family. All of them enlisted in the navy early on, and none had cushy jobs. My Uncle Jim survived Kamikaze attacks on his destroyer-escort off of Okinawa that he never discussed with anyone 'til the day he died. So we were four for four volunteering for service.

[@pablopeter3564]

EXCELENT comments and points of view. Thanks

[@johnchrysostomon6284]

Burgess Meredith appears in a US war information movie where he has to explain why the British weren't racist like the Americans were... The British did not segregate the armed services and thus also those places open to servicemen This troubled many Americans going into a pub and seeing black people there

[@davidobriend8560]

I remember hearing about a gigantic brawl in New Zealand with us troops against new Zealanders over race bc new Zealand didn't segregate native new Zealanders (Mauri ppl I believe). hundreds of servicemen faught each other, it started over seating at a bar.

[@coryhafer7285]

Gotta see a reaction video from you on that secret history of Justinian.

[@Ryan-qd1sp]

He mentioned more or less Hollywood when it comes to world war II I have to say one of my most favorite movies about that time. Is the movie A League of their own from what I understand it's about a baseball league that was created by women during world war II when they were too many men overseas for there to be proper baseball ⚾