German Defenses of Normandy by Robert Citino - 70th Anniversary D-Day Cruise

This lecture by Rob Citino, PhD was filmed on the 70th Anniversary of D-Day Cruise.

[@paulmanson253]

The actual content begins at the 10 minute mark. Nothing useful before that.

[@Ccccccccccsssssssssss]

Thanks

[@snigie1]

Thank you, I was beginning to wonder

[@tolyamochin4066]

А все болтуны именно так и навинают свои дебильные лекции!

[@bubbadiesel4961]

This comment should of got 140k likes, let's get this comment the love it deserves haha much love from texas, thanks for that!

[@Awesomes007]

I’d like to take a minute to welcome you here and talk very briefly about your comment. But, first, I want to back up a minute and start by thanking your parents for meeting, and your educational institutions for helping you learn to write in English. I’ve got a short anecdote about the time your parents met. It was a warm autumn evening…

[@pdqkevin]

The best part of KZbin lectures is you can fast forward the introductions and those people who love the sound of their own voices. Saved more than 8 minutes on this one.

[@fincorrigan7139]

Lecture proper starts at 9:50 - the preamble is directed towards the specifics of the attendees.

[@ascenscionstallion2993]

Thank you

[@behindthespotlight7983]

Thank you

[@barbararice6650]

Thank you for watching that stuff so I didn't have to 😑

[@nicholasshaler7442]

True hero of the republic here.

[@timgluckman8663]

His dynamic lecturing performance ensures that one's attention is held

[@garyhill2740]

Superb. Amazing talk by Robert Citino. I have enjoyed and learned from every lecture of his I have had the opportunity to hear. I haven't had the privilege of attending one in person, but have devoured every one I can find online. The way the video was concluded was touching and meaningful. Thanks to all involved, and those who shared it.

[@billd2635]

I learn something new every time I watch these talks. This is what KZbin is for. Too bad they dont know it.

[@luisnunes2010]

According to KZbin hq, it's for cat videos and repeating corporate crap that's on cable. History is too edgy (real).

[@appanpappan]

Yes! I just learned that the nazis conquered Norway and Denmark. Who knew?!

[@bradleydavies335]

KZbin knows it and your comment is regarded

[@dr.barrycohn5461]

Nothing really new here, but Dr. Citino is always lively and enlightening. Were it not for KZbin wouldn't know of him. Loved his Rommel looking like James Mason.

[@christiangraff6922]

I've been enjoying these lectures by Professor Citino...bravo

[@davidsabillon5182]

A new Citino video!

[@parkestanley2436]

YES, always good 👍

[@JTMcphever]

@@parkestanley2436 .

[@csabapongor5682]

Should create a notification for this:D

[@scotthix2926]

Definetly becoming a favorite lecturer. Articulate and engaging

[@PalleRasmussen]

Rob comes on at 07:55 and starts talking actual defences at 09:40 ish.

[@davidsabillon5182]

Thank you

[@trygveplaustrum4634]

Greatly appreciated.

[@casparcoaster1936]

Really worthwhile to listen to this guy talk about ww2, and this talk is as good as the half dozen recordingns of him about it on the web, don't miss this if ya ever thought you knew d-day accurately. Just superb. Warning though... fast forward to the 9 min mark first.

[@tallandhandsome29]

Thanks man. I was just about to click away.

[@scrappydoo7887]

Well I definitely wish I had found this channel sooner. Excellent content 👍 great to see these videos still being put out there

[@davehallett810]

I absolutely love these lectures,Rob is excellent at these talks, very entertaining

[@peyiots]

Entertaining certainly. One could argue somewhat of an operatic prima-donna ...

[@Kubelmann]

​@@peyiotswell aren't you the snowflake.

[@LuciFeric137]

Dr. Citino becoming one of my favorites..

[@thomasaffolter4386]

Me too.

[@TheWarriorprincess09]

I always enjoy Rob’s lectures. This one was great

[@mikeg3184]

I could listen to him keep going...so fascinating

[@zacharystuart7162]

These lectures are the best way to learn about the facts.

[@RifleEyez]

I wouldn’t say Blaskowitz is a total unknown (14:20 ish and previously). He famously condemned the Wehrmachts actions right from Poland in 39 and hated the SS - he wrote dozens and dozens of official complaints to high command about them and he gave SS men death sentences for stepping out of line (which Hitler rescinded), then committed suicide in 1948, despite the fact he was told he would likely be acquitted of all charges at Nürnburg; which he eventually was.

[@MaxAttacks16]

One of the best figures that put a lot of things in perspective is when he said that one division can cover about 10-15 miles of front (2,000 miles of front in west coast I believe)

[@MarcosElMalo2]

2000 miles including danish coast and the riviera coast along the Mediterranean.

[@richardrichard5409]

But a handful of potential landing sites so, not really a factor 😎

[@ryanmichael1298]

I really enjoyed the the first three minutes. It made me feel like I was really there.

[@TheToonMonkey]

This guy: we don't really have Field Marshals in the West. Monty: screw you fella

[@timburr4453]

Brilliant job

[@oldguy8078]

Fast becoming my favorite historian of ww1 and ww2.

[@steveo601]

My Grandpa was a flight left tenant in the RCAF squadron 430. P51’s. They launched recon at about 5am on dday

[@Digmen1]

I also love watching Dr Citino You want big? at 25:00 Yes D Day was a huge operation, and Eisenhower was worried that it might fail!

[@uncleeric3317]

His books are great!

[@mikehjt]

Rundstedt wasn't so pure. He served on the kangaroo court that 'tried' and sentenced those army officers who were caught up in the aftermath of the July 20th plot and gave the 'court of honour' the gloss of his supposed Prussian rectitude. And remember, like the rest of the German generals he had no problem with Hitler's murders of Jews, Roma/Sinti and Slavs and Hitler's mad dream of conquest in the east. He likely got the same bribes as most high ranking German generals got (several times their nominal salary) to ensure loyalty to the regime, and Rundstedt was loyal to the Hitler regime.

[@user-oo8xp2rf1k]

Great Summary of Germany's strategic problem in ww2 from Citino, illustrated from the perspective of Normandy, but alive to the fact that off the map, in the east the Soviets (supplied and fed by the allies and paying them back in blood) are coming and will defeat Germany wether or not the landings in 1944 fail. So far I (personally) would say that this is the best single lecture on the essence of the WW2 (on Europe) confict I have seen. I love the way he takes something tangible and managable : Germany's problem of how to defeat the landings. But sets it in a context that explanains Germany's near- unsolvable strategic problems in ww2

[@DannyBoy777777]

A western perception is that the Soviet Union relied upon the Western Allies for supply and its nonsense. The vast majority of munitions, hardware, food, materials and fuel used in their war effort were domestically produced. Just one of the academics talk about this is Prof. Bellamy in 'Absolute War: Soviet Russia in the SWW.

[@user-oo8xp2rf1k]

@@DannyBoy777777 I see. I've not read that. Would you agree with my main point though?

[@DannyBoy777777]

@@user-oo8xp2rf1k Yes. Sorry for nitpicking. Citino is on record in his belief that the USSR was capable of winning on their own, albeit a much longer war.

[@DannyBoy777777]

@@user-oo8xp2rf1k Just a few stats. The US shipped 7,000 tanks of all types to the USSR (approx. 1,500 Shermans and Grants). Soviet production of Soviet designs between June 1941 and May 1945 was; T-34 35,500, T-34/85s, 30,000, KV and KV-85s 4,500 and JS 4,000 plus the pre-war production; 35,000 tanks of all types. About 109,000 in total. So while American contributions weren't unnoticeable its less than 5%. In motor vehicles it was much more substantial to the total number of vehicles deployed. In aircraft the US shipped about 11,000. The Soviets produced 40,000 IL-2s alone.

[@DogeickBateman]

@@DannyBoy777777 So not only was Lend Lease wrong, it was unnecessary

[@sarcasmo57]

It was interesting. thank you.

[@helenaconstantine]

27:00 Rommel was put in charge of the coast defenses in December 1943

[@ToddSauve]

It is interesting to note that as Montgomery drew up his plans for the Normandy campaign, the Canadians found themselves assigned to the toughest section of the Normandy front. Why was it the toughest? Because it was so wide open in so many places that it was regarded as by far the most favourable territory for tank warfare. So the very terrain of the Juno Beach regions was far and away recognised as the worst for infantry. Hedgerows were fewer or farther between, but the wide open access for the excellent German armoured divisions made it a terrible place to fight for the generally inferior Allied armour. In response to this, D-Day plans called for double the number of artillery pieces to be landed on Juno than on any other beach and immediately put into action, coordinated with the forward-most Canadian infantry units-the Regina Rifles and the Winnipeg Rifles-both of whom had previously stormed the beach early on June 6. It was in precisely this sector of the Canadian front that the Germans planned to mass their armoured divisions and try to push the Canadians back into the sea, and then spread left and right to attack Gold and Sword beaches. This is what Montgomery realised when he drew up the plans for the Normandy campaign. The terrain literally dictated the Nazi’s strategy. During the lynch-pin Battle for Bretteville (June 7-10, 1944) this artillery support was vital and broke up numerous German infantry and 12 SS Panzer attacks. That and the sheer guts and unbelievable determination of the two aforementioned infantry regiments saved the day. These were some tough Canadian kids from the Prairies who took on the German SS Panzer divisions and beat them. The commander of the 12 SS Panzer division, Kurt Meyer, had smugly concluded that his men would sweep the Canadians back into the English Channel like so many “little fishes.” Needless to say, Meyer and his 12 SS Panzers were the ones licking their wounds and howling in misery when they finally fled from Bretteville-minus 43 dead, 99 wounded, 10 missing and 29 panzers destroyed including a good number of Panther Mark Vs. And other than the 29 lost panzers, that was just on the first night! It was here and at nearby Abbey d’Ardenne that Kurt Meyer’s 12 SS and the Canadians began executing each other’s prisoners tit for tat, with no quarter given. The two sides really hated each other and this made for likely the bitterest fighting in Normandy. Here is a limited account of the terrible fighting at Bretteville: www.canadiansoldiers.com/history/battlehonours/northwesteurope/brettevillelorgueilleuse.htm And here is an excellent and much more detailed scholarly account of the Battle of Bretteville in .pdf format: scholars.wlu.ca/cmh/vol16/iss4/2/ [Be prepared to meet Chief Engineer Montgomery Scott of the original Star Trek series fame, as he was actually right in the area, being a Canadian artillery officer who landed on Juno Beach on D-Day. I bet you didn’t know that! 😉] In fact, the Canadians made the greatest penetration of the German lines on D-Day, beating them back almost seven whole miles in the first 24 hours. Neither the Americans nor the British came anywhere close. Indeed, three Sherman tanks of the Canadian 1 Hussars actually reached their assigned D-Day objective-the Caen-Bayeux highway next to Carpiquet airfield-before having to pull back when they could not make radio contact with army HQ and request reinforcements. (And it was hard fighting with the Canadians losing 359 men killed landing on the first day alone-second only to Omaha for men KIA.) Perhaps the great progress was because the Canadian army was the only Allied army in Normandy that was entirely volunteer. (Originally Juno beach was to be called Jelly, but Churchill forbade it noting it was a sorely inappropriate name for a place where so many men were going to die.) And yes, the two British and one Canadian beaches faced the bulk of the German armour-something like 70% of all German armoured divisions in Normandy faced us around Caen. Indeed, German armour was lined up virtually cheek by jowl. Historians have carefully investigated the numbers involved and the Germans, Canadians and British had more tanks per square mile all around Caen than the Russians and Germans had at Kursk. Around Caen and Carpiquet alone, the Germans had eight panzer divisions supplemented by an additional battalion of more than 100 Mark V Panthers. They were Panzer Lehr, 2 Panzer, 9 Panzer, 116 Panzer, 1 SS Panzer, 9 SS Panzer, 12 SS Panzer and 21 Panzer. Though few people understand this, these were the heaviest, most concentrated tank battles of WW2. In his analysis of the fighting against the Canadians of the Regina Rifles Regiment at Bretteville (which contained a number of Sherman and Firefly tanks, as did virtually every Canadian and British regiment), Hubert Meyer, the commanding general of the 12 SS Panzer division (after Kurt Meyer had been captured in September 1944) wrote later in “The 12th SS: The History of the Hitler Youth Panzer Division, Volume 1” that: “The tactic of surprise, using mobile, fast infantry and Panzers even in small, numerically inferior Kampfgruppen, had often been practiced and proven in Russia. This tactic, however, had not resulted in the expected success here against a courageous and determined enemy, who was ready for defense and well equipped. Through good battle field observation, the enemy had recognized the outlines of the preparations for the attack and drawn his own conclusions. The deployment of D Company [of the Regina Rifles] to Cardonville had prevented a breakthrough by 2./26 [of the 12 SS] from the farm south of the rail line to Bretteville, only 1,000 meters away. The anti-tank defenses all around the village were strong enough to thwart all attempts by the Panzers to by-pass the town to the south and north. The surprising use of parachute flares with glaring magnesium light blinded the Panthers and clearly outlined them to the enemy Pak [anti-tank guns like 6 and 17 pounders]. This enemy was especially strong in the defense and could not be taken by surprise. He fought with determination and courage.” [pages 186-87] One is unlikely to find higher praise from the SS than 12 SS Panzer General Hubert Meyer had for the Regina Rifles Regiment of the Royal Canadian Army. And finally, let's look at the private sentiments of General Dwight D. Eisenhower. In a rarely noted statement from him, cited by historian Andrew Roberts in his “History of the English-Speaking Peoples Since 1900,” 2007, on page 343, he points out a little-known quote from Eisenhower that “man-for-man the Canadians were the best soldiers in his army.” In hindsight, it is something of a feather in Montgomery’s hat that he beat his own estimate of 90 days for capturing Caen and destroying the German armies-by two full weeks minus one day-but who is counting when numbers are so great and the opposition so terrible? And finally, Montgomery (and all the Allied generals) had insights into overall German strategy and counterattack plans through the Ultra intercepts at Bletchley Park, England. On many occasions he chose to withdraw his forces a short distance in order to preserve them, when informed that much superior German armoured divisions were being moved up to recapture territory lost. This was only sensible. You do not throw away large masses of men and armour to be ground up by superior numbers of enemy armour simply to display your bravado. No, you withdraw and rebuild your own forces until you can overcome what you positively 100% know is a much stronger force facing you only a short distance away. Many have questioned Montgomery’s leadership, perhaps with some reason. But how many know that he had to preserve his forces (as much as he could anyway) when Ultra intelligence revealed that not doing so would only be a futile gesture and the deliberate squandering of many men’s lives? Moreover, London had already told him that infantry reserves were virtually nil (though armour was abundant) and he had better save as many of his men as possible. So let’s try to be a little bit fairer in our criticisms of him. My hat comes off to the many, many brave and excellent fighting men from the US and Britain. They fought as hard as anyone else but it was a team effort between the three great English speaking nations of the world that defeated Nazi Germany in Normandy, as well as the many brave French, Polish and other freedom loving European soldiers who fought alongside us. Bravo to all involved! PS I am not trying to glorify war here, just so anyone who might think this to be so can understand that I do not approve of war-for all the good this will do.

[@thevillaaston7811]

Not really... The location of forces in Britain dictated where they would land in Normandy. US forces forces were located in the West Country and therefore landed on the Western beaches. The Canadian forces were concentrated in North East Hampshire, Surrey and West Sussex, beween British forces that formed Force G and Force S. Hence, the Canadians landed at Juno Beach.

[@ToddSauve]

@@thevillaaston7811 Your answer in no way contradicts what I said. Montgomery knew where the Germans had to mount their armoured counter attack. On Juno beach. For a much more extensive examination of the issue get Marc Milner's "Stopping the Panzers: The Untold Story of D Day" from the University of Kansas Press.

[@thevillaaston7811]

@@ToddSauve Where is it on record that 'Montgomery knew where the Germans had to mount their armoured counter attack. On Juno beach'? Montgomery makes no mention of it in his NORMANDY TO THE BALTIC (1947) or in his memoirs published in 1958. Montgomery's plan for OVERLORD provided for German forces to be drawn onto the British 2nd Army front in order that the US 1st Army could be free to be able to capture Cherbourg in the shortest possible time. Montgomery expected that the German 21st Panzer Division would stand in front of Caen. The German counter attack was opportunistic and ran to the coast in the gap between JUNO and SWORD beaches rather than in front of Canadian forces. If you have paid money to this Marc Milner for a untold story then you should ask for your money back. The story of those events has long been known. Nigel Hamilton, Hastings and so on detail the events. Even the charlatan Beevor probably does as well. My own father first heard about it on the late afternoon of D-Day, after he had landed at SWORD beach, when he was told that the Germans had reached the coast and would attack along the beach.

[@ToddSauve]

@@thevillaaston7811 I can only tell you so much. After that you have to read the _latest_ research. I don't know why you are so angry? Here is the story. Marc Milner is a professor of history and relied on the most recently declassified documents from the British archives at Kew. He wrote the book I suggested for you entirely from the official records. He explains in the book why things were so twisted in the "official" narrative since the war. If you read the book all will be explained.

[@ToddSauve]

@@thevillaaston7811 Here links to two great interviews with Marc Milner on this subject. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jZfGmqWorJqXoaM kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y6TShYaogNCWntk

[@coltonp3247]

Wow, the ending remarks made me tear up. Crow never met his baby girl but she knows he loves her

[@elliottg.1954]

It has a long intro, so maybe start from 09:30 for the point. In fact this is a good and engaging presentation, after watching Dr Andrew Roberts rather poor and stulted book promotion: "Why Hitler Lost The War -German Strategic Mistakes in WW2". It's worth listening to this lecturer here, and the whole presentation.

[@-C.S.R]

In saving Private Ryan, they have those defensive obstacles backwards in the movie. It's crazy with all the real life pictures and so-called experts to help on the movie they still somehow didn't notice?

[@davidrasch3082]

The United Kingdom Series History of the Second World War, volume one adds some additional detail. Still available for purchase online.

[@alejandrobetancourt4902]

More Robert Citino.

[@stefanebert7171]

Love Citino! Best Historian to me. Blaskowitz is a very interesting character. Best from Hamburg, Germany

[@alganhar1]

Personally I think the Combined Chiefs of Staff were one of the unsung advantages the Western Allies had over the Axis, it ensured that the Americans and British/Commonwealth/Empire plus their attached Free Force Allies were all more or less working off the same page, and to roughly the same plan. Sure, there were disagreements, some rather explosive, but on the whole the system worked, and it gave the Western Allies a hell of an advantage in Command and Control. You are never going to have a perfect, utterly smooth cooperation, especially when you add the fact that so many good Generals also had considerable egos, but on the whole it worked. Mind you, saying that by 1944 the Allies had so many advantages its almost bewildering, if you look at Germany and its fuel supply alone they were struggling to fuel the tanks, trucks and aircraft they HAD, let alone fuel more of them. Sure, German Industry could build more tanks, trucks and aircraft, but there were already tanks, trucks and aircraft that could not be used because of lack of fuel. Some 75% of the Me 262's built were never delivered to front line squadrons because there was not enough fuel not for the aircraft, but for the transportation to get the aircraft to the squadrons....

[@thomasaffolter4386]

Amateurs focus on combat. Professionals on logistics. Success isn't sexy, it takes dull work.

[@typxxilps]

75% never delivered due to fuel shortag - another lesson to learn, if it was only true. But is it true ? I've seen Boeing jets by hundreds grounded, all illegaly brought into the air by an american agency working together with the industry. That was a logisticial issue too, cause Boeing was no longer able to get through with the lies they told. Sales dropped, new orders too. The german military production back then had to follow procedures and they did it which leads to the picture of ME 262 along the highway to Munich but you must be a genius to know that the german fighter with the highest power (horse and fighting power) did not get the fuel it needed to be flown by the squadron to be picked up. Shortages yes, fuel for the Luftwaffe too, but not for the best fighters for being picked up. Those planes along the highway were lined up - partly - for being refitted to a better version. They raised the production volume by no changing while producing a lot and decided to change it after the main assembly line or fully equip the planes on a different facitliy. That was called production efficiency back then where Speer had become famous for to increase that - as an amateur cause he had been lifelong an architect. But american usually are so proud nowadays of mediocre mass produced shermans which was the description of the american soldiers back then compared to the german Tiger and Panther tanks. They said that Hitlers tank crews were protected by better / thicker armor and got the better canons and amunition. The British did not trust the american philosophy and put firepower into the shermans to give those british crews the ability to fight back at the same distance at least a few per batallion. The americans preferred cheap mass prodcution and did not care about the crews. And the pilots of the allied bombers did not like those ME 262 flying through their lines either while being protected better. Nowadays the US do the opposite, not masses, but class even though the class suffers from time to time a lot while being defeated or forced to retreat by third world countries from Vietnam (where more german soldiers fell than french cause those were forced as pow of french into the foreign legion) over Kenia (remember black hawk down) and Iraq to Afghanistan. Why ? For sure due to missing discipline and war crimes since the normandy invasion or let us know about the french girls that got pregnant and called it rape, all those kids the catholic church cared for from those german women whose friends were pow or dead. These children do still live and the children born without father from end of 1945 without real parents or father giving free for adoption over the catholic church tell a different story. and you can do the math pretty easily across the ocupation zones which soldiers had not learned the lessons. Liberators yes, but also war criminals from the beaches in Normandy where they had killed german POWs for simply having done their job better than the american had expected. No one was accused if you read beavers book carefully about the pow that disappeared. For sure german pow killled by german fighters flying over the beaches of normandy ? I mention this cause the US military exports war crimes if they invade a country usually called liberation like nice Nazi propaganda. American female women in front of iraq POW is one of the pictures, crying children burned by napalm another and water boarding and guatanamo as the new normal ? Does not work, you loose allies, the societies in the countries of your allies and then their soldiers and politicians that can not explain all the things going on under the power of american military. Pretty many defeats in the last decades - and no blind loyalty for any american adventures that only can go wrong cause US lying in public if you remember the reason to start a war against iraq when french and german governments called it being not convinced that the iraq had still poison gas which the did not have. That was the only chance to invade the iraq - and it became a nightmare for all who went with the US. And do not forget: the US had made the taliban / tribes big for fighting the USSR in Afghanistan supporting them wiht rockets while the russians did not deliver anti air weapons to the taliban which then would have shot all the planes down. I hope that all those carrier and air power and marines train somewhere in the US not abroad cause then things go wrong 9 out of 10 times cause the military / government is missing the ability to succeed measured by the mission goals before the first shot and how they get out finally.

[@chillpengeru]

​@@typxxilpswhat an asinine tangent.

[@DieNextInLINE]

@@typxxilps I read that Sherman crews had an 80% survival rate. The Sherman and it's gun was fine against the Panzer III's and IV's that Germany was fielding. It wasn't until '44 that Tiger's started showing up and they started building the Sherman with a 76mm gun.

[@DogeickBateman]

@@typxxilps Found the Nazi

[@Bozothcow]

Now I learn that that line "you can end the war you fools" from A Bridge Too Far is pretty much a quote of Rundstedt.

[@Falcon_Serbia]

Take your medicine son.

[@Digmen1]

I always wonder why they used the word Army above the Corps level. There were two German armies in the west And yet there was only one German Army! I have thought about this anomally since I started studying WW1 in 1960 when I was 15.

[@canineuniversity1015]

Hey KZbin, we need more Citino

[@MaxAttacks16]

So what was the division name/info/etc that was rushed in and placed by Omaha beach ....i listens over about three times and never heard him say the name of this outfit that they brought in from the east//or had experience prior fighting in the east?

[@tonyromano6220]

252d I think, yes they were experienced if my memory is correct.

[@shaunlanighan813]

near the end 357th i think

[@amaniacwithacar]

It was the 352nd infantry division

[@XxBloggs]

I’ll never get over how the historians on Saving Private Ryan got it so wrong with the beach obstacles and put them the wrong way around.

[@diedertspijkerboer]

The plane ratio would also have changed a bit as a result of allied planes having to fly in from Britain, thus losing time to fly over the landing zones, whereas the German planes were, presumably, nearer by.

[@seantighe3077]

Not really, many German air units had been moved back closer to the borders of Germany. The distance to cover for most German aircraft was similar to that of the Allies.

[@easthockleydome4507]

With no air cover they could never have stopped it

[@rocknral]

26:50 The soldier is a painting on the turret. That's why there's no shadow. Propaganda to scale the gun much bigger than it really is.

[@localbod]

You are absolutely right. I've seen that image so many times, and yet I missed that obvious fact.

[@nickdanger3802]

23.00 Packard Merlin Lord Beaverbrook The best production I ever saw was a job with which the Ministry had nothing to do, nothing at all. It was the production of the Rolls-Royce engines in the United States. It was done by the Pack hard Company. There was not a single representative of the Ministry there to supervise and only four representatives of the Rolls-Royce firm. The job was most 809 wonderfully done. In no time at all, production had been got under way. The output from that firm is remarkable. The Pack hard Rolls-Royce engine is an example to the whole world. There was a very good American aeroplane called the Mustang. The engine of the Mustang was giving good service, but some genius had the idea of putting Rolls-Royce engines into the Mustangs, and the result is a very good aeroplane, one of the best in the world-some people will say the very best. That was the result of this project in America over which the Ministry had no supervision, although the contract was made here by the Minister. Hansard FLEET AIR ARM. HL Deb 27 January 1943 page

[@richardrichard5409]

Interesting take. If I could add some value.... I'd comment that there was never 2000 miles of coast to protect, both sides knew there were in fact very few sites a landing could place, maybe a handful at most? 1 in 4 Axis defending troops were actual Germans but, those 'new' Germans sure fought well for the their 'new' leader. Schnell (fast) boats, schneller means quicker boats.

[@clayz1]

Starts at 8:00

[@borismuller86]

13:48 “…we don’t really have Field Marshall’s in the West…” How about Field Marshall Montgomery?

[@ArmyJames]

He probably meant “in America”.

[@wbertie2604]

The lecturer confuses the B-26 ( medium bomber) and the A-26, a light attack bomber, not a medium. Both were used in D-Day. This is minor. More seriously, he downplayed the role of 1000 4-engined night bombers. These were not striking deep in France that night but mostly coastal batteries. USAAF four-engined bombers flew similar missions in daylight on D-Day.

[@kurtvonfricken6829]

28:50. Too bad Steven Spielberg didn’t see this photo. He got these obstacles backwards on Saving Private Ryan.

[@elrjames7799]

Not-with-standing the drawbacks, Wehrmacht Herr deployment in France was formidable. On 6th June 44, 24 category one (top grade) and 31 (sub strength) numbered divisions were deployed, plus assorted other units: several of which were 'ostfahig': that is to say: “fit for combat in the east”.As Eisenhower wrote: "Nothing was a sure thing on D-day."

[@smithnwesson990]

Never knew the Germans sent a full strength division to Omaha Beach before the invasion. No wonder it was such a nightmare. That and getting no Armor on the Beach.

[@thevillaaston7811]

It was part of a division.

[@marcoolinowetz5180]

Rommel, in fact, had a couple of flaws and wasn’t very popular with the OHL (High Command) in Berlin.

[@paulmcclung9383]

He also went around his chain of command routinely. Not that I care about what the members of a national criminal gang do, but it's not going to make people happy. And yes, I think the Nazi military were a criminal enterprise.

[@paulmcclung9383]

@Alex From Boston I am probably more conservative than your grandfather. I have actually read about the Holocaust, and other crimes the Nazis committed. Death squads attached to Army units. Theft of cultural and material property. Rape as R&R for soldiers. Rounding up slave labor. Who cares about what the Tribunal did not say? It was a criminal regime and they employed criminals. Just because I pointed out that Rommel was not paragon of soldierly virtue, you start name calling. So who's the snowflake?

[@davidhoffman6980]

@33:02 imagine having to lay on the hot desert sand under a metal box for 5 hours. That must have been miserable. He probably couldn't get any water till dark.

[@nikhil1536]

From 7:50 onwards.

[@airborneranger-ret]

Not just "no trucks" - no horses.

[@lochnessmonster5149]

My late uncle Floyd was a frogman at Normandy beach.

[@daniellarge9784]

That was a tough job. He must have been well trained and brave. The work they did on surveying the bathymetry and dealing with the obstacles and mines was vital but largely unsung work.

[@schwerpunkt7687]

My old prof!

[@smithnwesson990]

You were lucky to have a renowned expert like Him as a Professor.

[@schwerpunkt7687]

@@smithnwesson990 i am, he is. Worked with Glantz as well.

[@samsungtap4183]

What german division is he talking about at Omaha beach....i thought Omaha was defended by part of a rifle battalion

[@hpholland]

A million men and thousands of miles of defences-AND STILL the real fighting was happening thousands of miles to the east. Madness

[@albertoacosta9415]

Skip to 8:00

[@Ratkill]

15:30 Makes me wonder if he didn't have a secret stash of premium Schmalzler on him at all times. Not especially hard to be discreet about it either. Well except for the constant drippage lol

[@Dilley_G45]

German Infantry Div. 1st wave: 17.000 men

[@Sugarmountaincondo]

@1:04:00 This Putz is just a grade school historian, clean & uncut. Basic knowledge.

[@samsungtap4183]

The battle for Caen was the battle for normandie which was the battle for France

[@panzerjuiceinc.5183]

thanks for the video, but, subtitles would be nice.

[@PotentialHistory]

KZbin doesn't let you manually put them in anymore and only has the auto generated option anymore. They're alright for the most part but can be way off depending on audio quality.

[@victorcamillo1941]

Ppm

[@Styx8314]

Any landing from the Mediterranean would literally have to go around Switzerland and the alps to then be forced to fight into Alsace and Lorraine to get to the Ruhr and farther to Berlin. The Germans could have gotten away with leaving the south with less troops and no mobile armor

[@leorarink2794]

In David Irving's book "On the Trail of the Fox" he described how Hitler sent a special train to collect his Western senior commanders for a strategy meeting held in eastern France (I think in March.) At one point Hitler surprised everybody present when he made a personal prediction that, contrary to the consensus that the Allied landings would take place in Pas de Calais, he thought that it might be in Normandy. This was a mystery until, many years later, (this is not from Irving's book) a US officer died who had been to the Berlin bunker. In his attic he had Goebbels' diary where it said that Hitler had been told this by "Cicero" the famous German spy at the British embassy in Turkey. Amazingly, the Allies had sent Turkey a copy of the plans for Overlord or at least to the British embassy in Istanbul. Hitler was unsure about whether to believe it. WLR

[@JustMonikaOk]

I thought most of Irvings work had beenn heavily discredited?

[@daniellarge9784]

David Irving has been comprehensively discredited as an historian and human being. He is an anti-semetic nazi apologist. He is a holocaust denier who has been banned from entry to many countries, including I'm proud to say, Australia.

[@Johnconno]

Wear your black Hugo Boss suit and a discreet pin. Remember Stalingrad.

[@wstevenson4913]

Field Marshalls in the British Army

[@georgemorley1029]

Correct, but remember, “West” equals “American” to this audience. Myopic.

[@jjforcebreaker]

I read 'Mr. Citino' I click.

[@parokki]

Dr. Citino didn't go through 10 years of history school to be called Mr!

[@jjforcebreaker]

​ @parokki Where I live translation of 'Mr' is culturally and historically rooted as a designation of land-woning nobility, and for English-speaking people probably it would be better to use the term 'Sir'. And the omission of the title tied with that might often show more respect shown to a person - especially these days when younger XYZ.s in front of a name are as often a red flag as something that ought to be impressive. Especially in humanities. DR. Citino could be a charcoal burner from Virginia and what he says would be as valuable and entertaining as it is. Just some clarification and my two cents :)

[@ClevorBelmont]

I lied. I skipped the first dude and thought the guy in the cream jacket was the speaker smh. I will never provide a needless time stamp again.

[@ClevorBelmont]

3:36

[@Janus-fn2uz]

"DEFENCES"

[@thomasaffolter4386]

Always gives a great lecture. Rommel was smart but in this case he was wrong. The only chance to Get the allies out was to pray to God the weather was awful and keep some kind of tank reserve to respond flexibly to the invasion. Repelling invasion on the beach was hopeless. But of course this is a perfect example where hindsight is everything. On reflection, you have to respect how the opponent to hindsight is preparedness. Who prepared? The Allies. Much better. They did.

[@stevefowler2112]

It wasn't so much any intrinsic planning/preparation advantage by the allies, it was just the overwhelming amount of resources the American economy and oil and gas reserves/refining capabilities gave the allies an advantage in resources that was impossible for the Germans to overcome no matter what they did in 1944. I read a book many years ago by a German who interviewed many of the German soldiers who had been in the fight on the western front, one very telling anecdote was that one german said after he was captured a couple days after D day the Americans took them down to the beach to hold them and he said as he watched the Americans unload everything in trucks and tanks and vehicles but not one horse he said he thought to himself; any army that has so much petroleum that they need no horses is un beatable.

[@shadyoakum9978]

I wonder what would have happened if Hitler had just double crossed Stalin? Roll into Poland consolidate, and then just keep rolling east. Would many have been willing to come to the defense of the Soviets?

[@username_3715]

With 25 divisions tied up in the west, the allies invading Norway before he can, and without capturing the hundreds of thousands of trucks and tens of thousands of artillery pieces they wouldn't have got very far.

[@treyriver5676]

P47 could do so as well and P38 the mustang gets more credit than it likely merits,

[@Raptorrat]

The P-38 had less success in Europe, because of the altitudes and weather conditions encountered. It was more suited to the Pacific. External fuel-tanks had been available earlier in the war, but the going thought was that bombers would always reach their target, and were protected enough. And the fighter side thought external tanks were cumbersome. So the priority just wasn't there.

[@treyriver5676]

@@Raptorrat Your augment is the classic one and may well be in part accurate , but the facts contradict parts of it. . There WERE drop tanks available for the P47 military.wikia.org/wiki/Republic_P-47_Thunderbolt kzbin.info/www/bejne/l3SvkmNtbdtpb80 Weather and Altitude ? The weather at 15K feet does not change with the latitudes very much. The early teething on the Allison engine was not uncommon for any new model of engine, (war expedience in training of ground crew was no help.. to any of the early USAAF units) what made it worse was the the US had a very short school for combat pilots the aircraft used for primary flight training was often the PT19 (single engine open cockpit) Advanced Training was often AT9 (for twin engine) and AT6 (single engine) A quick read .. www.historynet.com/p-38-flunked-europe.htm " 1st Lt. Arthur W. Heiden wrote: “The quality of multi-engine training during World War II bordered on the ridiculous. I am convinced that with training methods now in use we could take most of civilian private pilots who might be about to fly the Aztec or Cessna 310, and in ten hours, have a more confident pilot than the ones who flew off to war in the P-38. A P-38 pilot usually got his training in two ways. The first way, of course, was twin-engine advanced training in Curtiss AT-9s, which had the unhappy feature of having propellers you couldn’t feather. After sixty hours of this, the student received ten hours of AT-6 gunnery, although he might get his gunnery training in the AT-9, since AT-6s were in short supply.” from link above. What made the P51 better than the P47 and P38 was it was NOT there in the early part of the war, had it been (and it was in part) it would have had many of the same issues with with ground crew and support and parts etc...

[@Raptorrat]

@@treyriver5676 I saw the same video, which made the exact point that the rub is between available and actually used. As for the P38. The teething an maintenance issues would be simular between both theatres. As would training. The main difference is the enviroment. With combat altitudes in Europe tending to be higher, then the pacific. Certainly higher then 15k. Iirc they were secundary issues mostly. Like the supercharcher running out of breath sooner then expected on colder days.

[@timtheskeptic1147]

They each have different attributes that make one better than the other in specific roles. IIRC the issues with P38 performance at altitude came from the British who, when they bought them, decided the superchargers were unnecessary and didn't get them. Hell, maybe they just didn't want to spend the extra 10 pounds on 'em. Again, that's IIRC. It was a long time ago I read that.

[@Raptorrat]

@@timtheskeptic1147 the RAF did buy p38's to their own specs, found they underperformed at high altitudes compared to Spitfire mk.V. Those aircraft were transferred to the USAAF, and used as trainers. (www.ausairpower.net/P-38-Analysis.html) Aside from training and known engine issues, the P38 suffered from inefficient cockpit- layout and heating. Over efficient cooling systems, and fuel-compound seperation. Later models, J and up, did improve, but the the preferred merlin equipped version did not materialize. And some issues remained.

[@Bidimus1]

P47 had done much of the work destroying the Luftwaffe before P51 had gotten to the fight in number. P38 in the 15th also were attriting the Luftwaffe. Yes it's a speech, but a few seconds to acknowledge fact over P51 narrative would be nice.

[@localbod]

Well said sir. I immediately thought that too. The same old P-51 narrative. After having watched Greg's thoroughly well-researched presentation about the P-47 and drop tanks, etc...I changed my opinion.

[@daniellarge9784]

​Lets hear it for Greg. The best YT channel on WW2 aircraft.

[@mikestevenson2303]

The majority of there armed forces were in Italy and the Russian front.

[@Styx8314]

If Hitler was looking at Normandy as a weak spot, then why does almost every documentary say that it is Hitler who was obsessed with pas de Calais

[@daniellarge9784]

Ever been in two minds about something?

[@dewetmaartens359]

I did not hear anything about the "eyes-and-ears" divisions. These were men unfit for normal duty, including men with a missing eye or missing limbs and teenage boys. Most of the coastal fortifications were occupied by these men. I have read many German accounts of the low quality of these fighting men. I don't take anything away from the brave men who landed, but we must be truthful about what I have mentioned above.

[@RifleEyez]

It’s also overlooked how the British and Canadians took on the bulk of the Panzers after the landings - I think the British were against 7+ Panzer Divisions at one point, including the SS Panzerkorps & the Heavy Tiger battalion with Wittmann.

[@samsungtap4183]

What happened to the ost battalions POWs captured at Normandie....handed over to Starlin to be murdered....maybe 20.000 pows murdered...not Eisenhowers greatest moment

[@charleschase1300]

Worcestershire sauce!

[@hwz1419]

Polish POW's still was in OFLAG and STALAG. Polish soldier in Wemacht was from territories: Śląsk, Wielkopolska, Pomorze wich join to III Reich after september's campain in 1939. This was illegal conscriptions. This is not polish POW's from german lagers. This gays in 1944 massive deserters from Wermacht to Polish Army in the West (1 Polish Armouded Div, I Polish Corps , II Polish Corps).

[@albertoacosta9415]

Skip the first 10 minutes

[@kaveebee]

Somehow I can't visualise the Germans playing poker

[@ddddd9665]

Great lecture, but the audience and their questions are very Anglo-centric. By this point, German tactics in France are tantamount to bailing water on the Titanic.

[@markgrehan3726]

The German officer love at the start was somewhat jarring, Rommel and Rundstedt were certainly no angels but really interesting talk overall. Though not 100% sure about the loss of Omaha leading to an end in 46 plus nukes hitting Europe. Would have been interesting to hear about the French Resistance involvement in intelligence gathering, though time is a factor.

[@tankgirl2074]

As one viewer noted, 'nothing new here'. An overly generalized talk, in isolation of all the other presenters presentations at the Overlord Museum in France. A few 'madman Hitler' notes (Citano knows better than playing that card), but nothing on Rommel's recognition of how weak the Cherborg - Caen area was. A delight to hear Robert talk but there isn't any substance to this video because its being told to people who have seen the defences on the ground and heard more from other presenters.

[@cesaralvarado775]

D-Day: “operation overextend the Nazis so Stalin can decimate 75% of the Wehrmacht with the largest military ever created, thanks to rapid industrialization and collectivization, but we’ll never mention this and take all the credit.”

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The majority of the Luftwaffe and all of the Kriegsmarine were lost in the west, as well as 1/3 of the panzers. The Soviets mostly destroyed second rate badly equipped non mechanised horse drawn rabble. 2/3 of German divisions in the east were poor.

[@florinivan6907]

The germans would have been far better served if they invested the money for the Atlantic Wall into fighter aircraft and U-boats. When fighting a war money is not an unlimited resource but its the most important one spend it wisely. Trying to do everything is not possible.

[@ssgus3682]

They didn't have the fuel to that.

[@florinivan6907]

@@ssgus3682 Considering how the Wall was breached from the start I doubt investing in more Uboats or fighter bombers would have been worse.The Atlantic Wall barely held for a day and I'm being generous here. When one method fails completely choosing another method is by default better I doubt it could be worse.

[@ssgus3682]

@@florinivan6907 depending on when you build the U-Boats possibly. Work on the Atlantic Wall did not start until March of 1942 and it did not become serious until Rommel took over. Building more U-Boats in 1943-44 does nothing as the allies are sinking them faster than they could be built. Building them in 1939 is a different story perhaps.

[@Falcon_Serbia]

Bro money is just that something you use to buy something else. The Germans where low on fuel that’s the entire reason hitler attacked Stalingrad. Which he couldn’t take and it was all down hill from there.

[@davidsabillon5182]

Rob Citino is the Neil deGrasse Tyson of world war 2 history.

[@trygveplaustrum4634]

After thinking about personality and entertainment value, I think I agree!

[@SloochMaGooch]

I don't like pointing this out but only thing that made Tyson famous is he is black. He's never done anything seriously academically. He coauthored a paper with like 12 other authors. That's it.

[@cropathfinder]

Pretty surface level, lacks detail for example doesn't mention at 31 min that those "panzer divisions" were mostly just in name only, some didn't even have tanks.

[@Birch37]

80% of German troops were actually in the East, so the West got off relatively lightly. The US joined 3 years after the war started. Germany was retreating from Russia the day before the attack on Pearl Harbor, and continued to suffer major losses in 1941-43 before US troops landed in Europe. The US certainly helped. The US made a significant contribution, however was not a significant contributor to the overall result.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

There were no German troops fighting in the east before June 1941, nearly two years after the war began. The USSR joined the war almost as late as the USA. Most of the Luftwaffe and all of the Kriegsmarine were lost in the west. The Battle of Britain was the first key defeat for Nazi Germany.

[@earth7551]

@@lyndoncmp5751 Incorrect Russians crushed a good 75% of the Nazi war machine and won WW2 plane and simple and reached Berlin first

[@richardrichard5409]

September 1939 to December 1941...just over 2 years....

[@patriley1026]

America could have easily defeated Japan, Germany, Soviet Union, England, Italy , and all other countries in World War 2. We had the power to do so and should have gone alone instead of being allies with genocidal Soviet Union.

[@XxBloggs]

That’s ludicrous. What an ignorant, foolish thing to say.

[@monfort537]

It took the Allies more than half a year to cross the Rhine after invading Normandy, with superiority in almost everything. They were one of the slowest advancing forces compared to their contemporaries, and tactically extremely inflexible. They never managed to strike a decisive blow against the Wehrmacht before the Russians reached the Oder. Even the famous Falaise pocket was a joke, considering that many German divisions escaped before the pocket was closed. The Allies were indeed excellent at bombing cities and their inhabitants to shreds, especially the cities of their partners: during the Battle of Normandy, almost, 30000 French civilians were killed by Allied bombing. Caen was completely destroyed without taking any advantage of it. If you have such an allay, you don't really need an enemy.

[@Falcon_Serbia]

We could have not defeated the Soviet’s sorry to burst your bubble. The amount of tanks and manpower they had in continental Europe was beyond anything the west could handle. 9/10 German losses where in the east 4/5 vehicles destroyed where in the east. We fought the limp dick of the German army and still lost 300,000 brave men. Even without Dday the soviets would have defeated the Germans they where steadily pushing west towards Berlin we only helped by making it happen sooner. Know your enemy there is no room for anything but brutal honesty in War.

[@alisterthomson7923]

Ridiculous

[@helenaconstantine]

19:00 there were no Osttruppen in the German divisions. What is he gibbering about? There were plenty of Osttruppen in France, but not integrated into the structure of Wehrmacht divisions.

[@revanite1176]

I'm pretty sure Citino knows his stuff a bit better than you, random KZbin commenter.

[@chuckschillingvideos]

There were plenty of osttruppen at Normandy. www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bxf7gi/many_of_the_units_opposing_allied_landings_on/

[@chuckschillingvideos]

Yep. I think Mr. Citino is just getting by on reputation in this talk. He knows he has a US audience that isn't the least bit interested in hearing that the Wehrmacht and SS defending Normandy weren't the crack troops they've always been portrayed to be.

[@chillpengeru]

Can you explain what your point is? Not being critical I just don't get the difference or why it matters.

[@billveek9518]

It was an American engine gherkin, the Packard Merlin and it was nothing like its namesake. So what else does he get wrong?

[@stevefowler2112]

When you go to war against the 2nd largest manufacturing capacity country in the world and, by a very large margin, the 1st largest manufacturing capacity country in the world, you have pretty much cooked your own goose.