Normandy Historian Reacts - D-Day From the German Perspective

[@richardseverin1603]

Really like your analysis Paul and also bringing us views of D-Day not just from the American beaches. I am very intrigued about Juno Beach, the casualties, and the sea wall very close to the shore line and the like. I feel for the Canadians wading to the sand beach and machine gun bullets hitting the water around their heads... For me that would be a "what am I doing here?" moment.

[@scottgrimwood8868]

Another great reaction Paul. You are right to say that if you are going to do history videos then do them correctly. In this case the animation and the script were saying (implying) two different things and people will remember the visuals not the words. Keep doing these reactions

[@skykeg4978]

Paul is THE foremost authority on WWII, most especially the D-Day invasion by the Allied Forces on June 5 - 6. If Paul says something in the presentation is wrong, then it wrong and needs correction. Thank you Paul for correcting the Armchair Historian`s video for us.

[@sage2308]

Loved this video: have watched Armchair Historian for a while and enjoy his output. Having your thoughts coming from your encyclopaedic knowledge of the subject added to and enhanced the overall experience. Please keep these reaction videos coming, they are starting to make an interesting series! Thank you👍👍👏

[@WW2TV]

Wonderful! I will do another one later

[@craigplatel813]

I've never been a fan of armchair historian. Usually find multiple errors in any video he does.

[@jadger1871]

@@craigplatel813 Not to mention that abortion of an unfinished game he created on steam then abandoned within three months of release. Just trying to cash in on the children who watch his videos.

[@victorreznov7965]

Great video man! I came to this channel after Indy told me about your collab on the eastern front of 1943, and ooooh boy was I wrong about the D Day. What you told about the Sword beach was truly eye-opening. I understood that armchair historian was a fan of including some questionable historic accounts (especially his Borodino video) but I was rewatching this D day video of his and not noticing these glaring inaccuracies (maybe because I watch long history videos while eating dinner and drinking alcohol I don't know). So, as I have heard you say that you live in Normandy, let me delve deep into my school memories (I graduated 7 years ago) and scrounge up what french I can remember : Mercy beaucoup monsieur!

[@WW2TV]

Thank you Victor, welcome to WW2TV

[@mjinnh2112]

Really great commentary. As an art historian, I really appreciated how you looked at the images and their interaction with words as well as how an image affects what we hear. Good work. It costs no more to get the facts right than not and there are many people out there who could help provide context and information to keep these errors from happening. Viewers deserve the truth. Sure, they will find it if they are hooked and then dig deeper to better material such as yours, but in the meantime, they are misled.

[@SiTheSly]

A decent critique. I really like the Armchair Historian. Admire the animations. Admire someone bringing history to his generation. I feel you were a bit too harsh. Since your knowledge of Normandy is exemplary. It is understandable.

[@WW2TV]

I started off by saying I like what Armchair Historian does and you are right about him bringing history to younger people. But I still think it's as easy to get these things right as it is to get them wrong

[@SiTheSly]

@@WW2TV I agree. You both are doing an excellent job of both promoting truth in history and making it available to all. If you could work together to make something, now that would be special. I will say no more except in this strange time. Peace

[@TerryDowne]

With regards to artillery...in "Six Armies in Normandy" John Keegan noted that 716th Div had a highly miscellaneous lot of Czech, Russian, and other foreign guns. That might be a major handicap in a mobile action, but if you're fighting a static defensive, the guns are under cover, and you have a large stock of ammo on the position it is much less of a problem. The 9th Australian Division in Tobruk had a lot of Italian guns, many of them obsolescent, but they were fighting a static defensive and had plenty of ammo for the Italian pieces and so they were a valuable asset. I think the gun in the sanitarium at Le Hamel was just an old Belgian 75mm field piece, but it still inflicted heavy damage

[@flightsimgeek579]

Hi from Australia. First live stream for me :)

[@stevemilam1747]

Hi from the US. Thank you Paul for being picky. Learning a lot from your comments

[@timbrown1481]

Awesome job Woody. I’ve learned more from you about Normandy especially Sword beach…. Heavily defended and your reactions to how poorly this beach and defenders are portrayed. Your facial reactions tell it all. Great graphics are pretty cool. BUT…. You gotta get the story right. This video should come with a disclaimer…. “Tales of Sword Beach” tells it all. TALL TALES of pure malarkey!

[@LeveretteJamesClifford1955]

You mention mine sweepers. A reading of the order of battle for the invasion starts off with the mine sweepers. I have a close friend who's father was on the USS Raven, a mine sweeper. His last name was McInnis. I found a book, one of the good battlefield guides with accounts and the order of battle. When I found the Raven mentioned, I bought a copy of the book to give to Mr. McInnis for the anniversary of D-Day, this was in the early 2000s. Mr. McInnis told me how in the months leading up to D-Day, mine sweepers made almost daily appearances just as first light arrived. When the sweepers first started appearing, close enough to the defenses for each side to be able to see individuals on both the beach side and from the Germans' point of view, on the sweepers, there were tense moments with some shooting. When the mines were cleared, the sweepers went back. At some point during the day, the German mine layers came and replaced the mines. And at first light the next day, the sweepers came back and cleared the mines again. This went on and both sides became comfortable at seeing the enemy this close. Mr. McInnis told me that because it was a very informal truce, he often saw Germans outside their bunkers moving about without worrying about being behind cover. Therefore, on June 6th, the Raven and the other boats up and down the invasion beaches arrived as usual, swept mines and left before the Germans on the beach observing the sea could see the flotilla approach. Therefore, the first action along the invasion beach areas were largely, but not completely successful without the sweepers taking casualties. I base this last statement on what Mr. McInnis told me, not from actual documents relating to casualties. Mr. McInnis did write a letter that he included in his thank you card. Some of the information was briefly repeated from his oral record. Mr. McInnis lived in North Carolina and his son and I worked together in Mississippi. The oral record was spoken to me after Mr. McInnis received the book, and came to Mississippi to see his son, and I was invited to visit and that was when this information was shared with me. However, a couple of years later, Mr. McInnis died and when his son returned to work, I gave him the card and letter as my way of saying that the story I was privileged to hear did not belong to me, but to my friend because it was his dad's story. I wish I could share the contents of that letter in material form especially since this episode includes judgement of what might be fiction versus truth, as well as how the truth becomes a casualty of language, hearsay and broad, all encompassing statements when only a portion of what is claimed is true. One thing regarding information in the program, I was thinking of what Cornelius Ryan undertook to gather information for the book, The Longest Day. I am sure you know that through a popular monthly magazine, Readers' Digest, and other means, Mr. Ryan advertised that he was doing research on the day of the invasion and people who had been involved were invited to write to him and his team to request a form that they would receive, and then send back when they had written what they knew and remembered. I suppose in pre-internet days and on such a large scale, it was necessary to send a form which by the nature of a form, guides people to stay on topic and not to have their stories turn into long, lengthy accounts that might tend to wander onto other topics, and then provide guidance to fill in the all important elements of what they recall during a particular time period that day, where they were, etc. The end of the book provides information regarding almost everyone who participated in the massive project. Not all of the people who returned material saw it end up in the book. The unused accounts are in a university archive in the United States and in the 90s, an extensive internet posting of many of those accounts was published for a short time online. These were by no means all of them. But each one was interesting and added at some level to the history to be known about that day. Those whose accounts were included found their names not just in their account in the body of the text, but also in a large appendix. Many of them also gave the town where they lived after the war and what they did for a living, including the name of the company they worked for. In my town, the respondent was listed as being a paymaster with a jeep that he was responsible for, out of which he basically set up a small branch of the United Stats Army invasion bank. There were a lot of reasons for putting the man with the money out where it might be needed, when it was needed. After the war he became a manger for Deposit Guarantee National Bank in Jackson, Mississippi, and the section even included the street address of where the man lived when he responded to Mr. Ryan's request. When I read this appendix and found the man's name and address, I looked his information up in the white pages of the phone book. 50 years later, he still lived at the same address! Lastly, when the book was written as a screenplay, some of the characters in the book were combined to tell a concise but abbreviated account of the action. The paymaster is seen keeping to his jeep aboard ship, while a story about camping with a father hunting in the Blue Mountains in June. Later, at Utah beach, the character with the jeep, played by Roddy McDowell, lands and shoots up a German machine gun crew which most likely were Georgians fighting for the Germans. So, our Mississippi banker with his paymaster jeep has been combined with another real life person to produce one movie character shown in two different scenes!

[@WW2TV]

Thanks for the detailed comment about mine-sweeping. I thoroughly I enjoyed hosting a show on WW2TV about the Normandy minesweeping process kzbin.info/www/bejne/qaOaf62MZ7yVl5I

[@Silverstream-74]

Thx for this commentary. The standard needs to be raised, to reduce myth and promote truth - to help people draw the right conclusions.

[@garythomas4805]

Love these, please keep them coming

[@arthurallen2719]

Another great show. One of my favorite KZbin channels. Would love to see a reaction video to fallen of wwii

[@dave3156]

Paul if you put out a new video you know I have to watch. You seem to enjoy doing these. The one that stuck out to me was the visual of the German paratroops coming down even though the caption on the little sign board said they hadn't been employed in that manner since Crete in 1940. Bit of a disconnect from the visual. Thx Paul!!!

[@guywerry6614]

I have to say that the animation of the German General Staff with the enormous brains is EXCEEDINGLY funny!

[@taddricketts6282]

-[Oganisation Todt......did many amazing things

[@WW2TV]

You're going to say the Autobahns aren't you?

[@Molesey_97]

great video Paul ! Really enjoying your reactions also I am currently researching into my great grandfather John Alexander Higgs and have found that he served in the Kings Royal Rifle Corps in the 11th battalion. Im just wondering if you have done any videos about this particular regiment and any battles they may have been involved in. I know he was wounded in Italy and that he signed up around 1940 I believe.

[@WW2TV]

No, I have not done anything on KRRC yet, and to be honest I don't think I know any specific experts - sorry

[@Molesey_97]

@@WW2TV Ah ok no worries still i appreciate you taking the time to reply. Also, Thank you for your content im really enjoying this channel.

[@seegurke93]

Thanks Paul! I love it when you go unhinged :D I learned a lot thanks to you!

[@marks_sparks1]

41:07 kudos to the animator showing HMS Warspite, using its famous DDay bombardment pic as reference.

[@silentotto5099]

I have to wonder how many Germans who actually fought on the beaches on D-day managed to survive both that and the subsequent fighting they were forced to endure in the coming months in order to provide a post-war account. It's difficult to imagine that it's a huge number. For example, I once saw a documentary that covered a reunion of Battle of Britain pilots which was filmed and broadcast back in the eighties. I was a bit shocked when I realized that almost all of the veterans at the reunion were those who were so badly wounded that they were knocked out of the war. Most of the rest of the BoB veterans had been killed in later operations, with only a few who had managed to get through the entire war more or less unscathed. I suspect it's much the same for the Germans who actually attempted to repel the invasion on the first day. Also, it was good to hear you sort of confirm that I wasn't being to harsh when I was skeptical of von Luck's account of his encounter with the 88s during Goodwood. When I first read it many years ago it didn't ring true, but I'm always reluctant to dismiss a first hand account unless I've actual evidence that it's in error. While you didn't elaborate on why the account is suspect, at least I know that the red flags I mentally placed on the account weren't entirely unjustified. Finally, The Arm Chair Historian's videos are adequate as an introduction to a subject for those who know nothing about it, I suppose, and I've found them entertaining. But, getting the best current understanding WWII is why I keep coming to your channel. There are only a few channels which do the sort of deep dives you've been doing on your channel and hearing from people who've been able to devote the time to study a particular battle or campaign in depth is priceless. I've been linking to your channel on other history related channels for those who might be interested. I didn't learn about your channel myself until you did the show with Drachinifel and I have to imagine that there are many others who also have a keen interest in history that don't know this channel exists. I watch a lot of history related content and not once did your channel ever show up in my recommendations. You keep making them and I'll keep watching them.

[@WW2TV]

You're right it wasn't many

[@OTDMilitaryHistory]

Great insights Woody! Juno Beach section was downright terrible. All the things of that happened that day and they just make stuff up. Not good.

[@neilcampbell2222]

Kiska unopposed invasion has 313 US/Canadian casualties (1%), according to Wikipedia.

[@WW2TV]

Yep, exactly

[@markrunnalls7215]

Not knowing the level of material that you know Paul on Normandy ,once again you have nailed it ,your arguments your attention to detail ,makes for great viewing over and over again .

[@WW2TV]

Thanks Mark

[@MatthewBoneyAbroad]

Wait?! Typhoons weren't tankbusters?! ;) That aside, superb video Woody, really enjoying these!

[@WW2TV]

You know what I meant Matt! Lol

[@timbrown1481]

Don’t pull the punches .. keep knocking down this guys story and keep myth busting.

[@pierrebach6161]

Franz Gokl is when I definitely see that your a real connoisseur of this topic, the 21th panzer division even with it funnies is still a quite powerful division and those funnies made from Lorraine French chassis had prove quiet effective in the Bourgebus battle weeks later Nice work

[@HydroSnips]

He wins points for not using Holger Eckhertz as a source tho’.

[@jmflournoy386]

pipercub with a bazoka may have been more deadly to a tank

[@michaelmichael4132]

It seems to me when youtube history presentations meander off into cloudcuckooland, it's often the mark of weak collaboration between those making graphics and those writing text. I've many times concluded after a video that the producers must never have actually watched the finished product themselves, or they would have fixed it. On the other hand, I've seen plenty of video interviews of authors by presenters who clearly haven't yet read the book. Life goes on.

[@WW2TV]

Thanks for the comment. If the last sentence is directed at me and my interviews. I haven't always read the author's book, but I often ask questions that the audience would ask who haven't read the book. So I know the answer already but I am making sure the viewers get a good response. I hope that makes sense?

[@michael_nelson]

Enjoying these reaction video's Paul!

[@WW2TV]

Glad you like them!

[@uazfoursixnine]

I like this series more and more

[@WW2TV]

Thank you

[@Happyfsscist33]

Ill never get this time back;(

[@MrNicoJac]

Hi Paul! I'm REALLY curious what you think of the accuracy of the Extra Credit videos about D-Day too ^^ This is the best link I could find, you can ignore the last video in the list! kzbin.info/aero/PLYyY1JrtqLhslTgqEdsV-z_EV4XM9qmJU (note: I'm not _telling_ you to go watch this for me, lol; but I do really like their approach and as such would recommend it to anyone - if you feel like watching it and letting me know, or continuing your response videos, I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts!) PS: they have a Lies episode at the end, where they discuss what they got wrong, or changed. So it's best to watch that before correcting the first video, IF you decide to continue the D-Day series :)

[@WW2TV]

Thanks. Check my channel playlists. I reacted to that very video yesterday

[@kemarisite]

Thank you for mentioning the minesweepers, which receive far too little coverage. As Adrian Little mentioned in Omaha Beach: A⁰ Flawed Victory, and as confirmed on the earlier video about Clearing the Lanes, the minesweepers should have expected to be seen the evening of D-1, so the fact that something was happening the evening before means there really wasn't any excuse for anyone to claim the Germans were surprised on a tactical level.

[@steveschainost7590]

If you are interested in minesweepers, might I suggest "Steaming As Before" by Richard V. Bovbjerg. Nothing on D-Day though. He commanded the YMS 353 in the Pacific.

[@dmartin4414]

Paul, I get a kick out of you referring to the animated narrator as "he", as if "he" is real. Welcome to AI. Having said that, I agree 100% with your analysis and comments, and that IF "they"(someone?) choose to make these "informative" animated presentations, they need to get the history right, they need to get the pronunciations right. Keep up the good work, Paul! PS - My uncle, William N. Martin, was US Navy Signal Corps, and landed on Omaha Beach we think no later than about 10am or so. Of course, he would almost never talk about his war experiences, but he did mention that "they would have landed earlier except for the back-up on the beaches", and that he was particularly worried as they circled with other craft, awaiting clearance "to go in". His Signal Corps group was in an LCT, and he mentioned that they "were very worried", as they were circling with some Rhino Ferries that appeared to be loaded with, among other equipment - ammunition, which of-course if hit would probably kill them all as it exploded.

[@WW2TV]

But he is a he, The armchair historian is a real human being

[@bookaufman9643]

I don't really have a problem with Omaha Beach being referred to as the deadliest. I understand that there is a bit of an equation there as to how many men were being moved forward versus how many died but I think saying it was the deadliest is only saying that the most men who were killed during the D-Day landings were killed at Omaha Beach. Specifically during the initial invasion. I've watched your show and I've also read a lot of books and there were certainly easier and harder beaches to get the men moving off of. Well I should say even moving on to. There are more glaring mistakes or conveniences in this animation than this one.

[@WW2TV]

You're right that Omaha was numerically the beach with the most casualties, but I still maintain the use of language regarding Omaha always perpetuates a false idea of the beach being a near disaster. This type of dramatic language is all fairly recent. As I said in the Omaha video, it's really not how the landings were described back in 1944.

[@davidk7324]

Tastes and learning styles differ and simply animated visuals have their place. Not my cup of tea and there are a distressing number of misrepresentations here: many German forces were drunk, deaf, old, digging hasty fighting holes and deserting to join the maquis. I'm sensitive to the US/Omaha beach bias of American authors and other content creators. Heartburn is warranted. One way to get my head around this issue is to turn the question around and ask myself, hypothetically, on which beach would I want to be with the first wave . . . second wave . . . if my aim was to survive and fight another day?

[@fuggit4319]

Thoroughly enjoyed.

[@WW2TV]

Awesome, thank you!

[@mathewkelly9968]

Australian Vs Japanese Squads (1942) who was superior ? By the same guy . Loved the stream btw

[@KVIIcolt45]

I generally dislike “reaction” videos for the reason that they usually seem more of someone’s actually physical/emotional reaction. Your two videos I have so far enjoyed however because you are analyzing versus just giving an emotional response about wether you like something or not.

[@WW2TV]

Thanks, yes I am really just reacting to the history

[@jontydenton1201]

The classic binocular cliche. ….nooooo….Come on Woody! Worst sin ever!

[@BIGBALDYBOLLOX]

great wor.. ur a mile of info

[@Caratacus1]

The throwaway dismissal of Sword was shocking. Especially combined with the over-hype of Omaha. However I know there are good US historians and not all make their money pushing jingoistic platitudes for the comfort of a domestic audience. I just wish I heard more from them!

[@jmflournoy386]

overcame Omaha beach should be sward in the sward section

[@Droodog127]

young kids born after 9/11 regurgitate filtered history from so many sources formed into their own narrative get web hits

[@MrThebirddog]

As an American, we do kinda exaggerate.

[@Tonyfng]

The Armchair Historian is okay. I've been reading about WWII most of my life and it started with a book of Photo's with accompanying narration which was mostly propaganda narrative back in the late 60's early 70's. I then started looking for books in our local library and watched documentaries and I started noticing the propaganda without critiquing or if it did critique it was similar to what Armchair historian is doing by implying this was horrifying and this was a walk in the park. Whether is was the ground war, naval action or air war the hard truth takes a great deal of time and commitment and its great to inform today's youth but it needs to be honest and personally I don't care about presentation if its not accurate then its a waste of time

[@wulfB]

May I suggest a reaction to Tunisian Campaign videos? Armchair historian has one, and so do others. There'll be a lot to criticize there...

[@WW2TV]

The thing is, I'm not an expert on the Tunisian campaign. Normandy is my specialist subject

[@donfrank4429]

Good morning

[@lesliebeilby-tipping6854]

The Americans won the war did they not!! Nicely presented but oh so very inaccurate. Your corrections are very well done Paul.

[@TerryDowne]

Hein Severloh...another myth well busted.

[@lmyrski8385]

It's not that German accounts have not survived, it's that they are not in English and are ignored in the English speaking world. I don't share the narrator's high opinion of the armchair historian. They seem to use poorly researched readily available and slanted sources that parrot each other, and often include allied propaganda and myths instead of actually doing serious research. As this video shows the armchair historian often exaggerates as well, turning isolated instances into generalizations. And, yes, the animation is often silly. I got into an exchange with the armchair historian a few years back and his immaturity and bias were certainly issues.

[@WW2TV]

You're right about the German accounts, but the ones we have are more from senior officers than "boots on the ground".

[@RomanHistoryFan476AD]

It seems too many of these D-days videos have to some reason stroke the US ego it seems in terms of how hard the fighting was on the beaches.

[@pscaglione3]

👍

[@jimplummer4879]

People were getting killed and wounded all over the place.

[@nickjackson6905]

Which book was it that was mainly fake? i have the Normandiefront book was it that one?

[@WW2TV]

Dday Through German Eyes - Holger Eckhertz. Normandiefront is good

[@andrewhull365]

What is the fake book called?

[@WW2TV]

DDay Through German Eyes - Holger Eckhertz

[@HareK0nnen]

That's something i frequently see in US produced media with regard to foreign names: there's a complete lack of interest in getting the names right. It drives me mad, cause it comes off as really arrogant or, at the very least, ignorant. How hard is it to take a couple minutes to find out how that name is pronounced? you don't have to do it perfectly, but at least get the general idea right, instead of saying it how YOU think it should sound? Edit: Talking about how the Armchair Historian pronounces the French names, of course.

[@bookaufman9643]

As much as I enjoy the criticism and correction of this video add a few times here it seems that maybe you're over analyzing the production. The point that comes to mind is the idea that typhoon's don't necessarily blow up tanks. Obviously they did blow up some tanks and it just isn't worth the effort to correct the fact that that wasn't how they normally functioned. It's not being stressed by the animation as being how they normally functioned it's just showing one instance. I guess I'm trying to say you might be reading too much into it. I guess that if you are looking at this animation as somebody's introduction to Normandy then maybe that could be the problem. I think this channel does get a lot of viewers who have a serious interest in history and it's just something else to watch when there's not a episode of WW2 TV coming down the pike. Then again it is your reaction video and not mine so maybe I should stop telling you how I react.

[@WW2TV]

I disagree - sorry. These animated videos get massive views and perpetuate myths. The idea that Typhoons are even semi-regularly knocking out tanks with rockets is false. Show them knocking out radar positions or strafing columns with 20mm. Look at the Falaise Gap, there were nearly 200 claims of tanks knocked out by Typhoons and upon investigation it turned out to be 9 I think, 2 of which were already broken down. And what's wrong with criticism and analysis anyway? No-one has to watch my videos. These are my reactions and I think they are justified

[@bookaufman9643]

@@WW2TV I'm guessing that our difference of opinion is a matter of our perspectives. This is what you do for a living and so it's almost an attack on the history that you're trying to push out into the community. It doesn't have the same intensity for me obviously as somebody who's just a fan of military history and not somebody who lives and breathes it. I also have subjects that I am extremely well informed in and I get bothered when I see them being misrepresented. So I guess I get it.

[@mikemccartht4628]

Pronunciation really doesnt matter 🤷‍♂️ As long as you know what hes saying it works all the same. Great video either way, really insightful.

[@brianyee7138]

Hi Paul

[@SiTheSly]

I have a feeling I am stating the obvious here but if you could work with these guys/girls. kzbin.info Together you could produce a definitive account of D-Day in our lifespan. Love your work. Peace.

[@WW2TV]

Watch this space. Meetings have happened

[@MrNicoJac]

@@WW2TV That sounds very promising! ^^

[@localbod]

Combat at Gold beach began in 'ernst'. (38.08) Lmao. How about 'in earnest'? This guy is obviously passionate about the subject but getting someone to proof read can make a huge difference to how the information is received. Good animations and reasonably researched but perhaps relying too much on old and established accounts and littered with inaccuracies and distortions.

[@WW2TV]

I noticed that - he did it twice in fact, but pointing it out seemed harsh lol

[@localbod]

@@WW2TV I am often accused of being a pedant (my mother was an English teacher). But for someone who is well spoken the narrator should have got his vocabulary / pronunciation checked first.

[@carlreddinger9707]

Maybe combat didn’t really start until Ernst got there he was a holder of the Knights Cross come on everyone knows about the exploits of Ernst he’s a legend in Wehraboo circles

[@stephenmichalski2643]

I must confess I am rather put off by this guy......firstly he poses himself as some learned historian.....I mean....really??? .....look at him....he barely can sport a proper beard etc......is he even 27 ???.....I know....I know.....not right to judge a book by its cover and all but......really???....I first started studying history for myself at age 11.....am now nearly 70.....in my experience it took me at least 25 years to realize that just because you read tons of history.....unless your super critical....open minded.....constantly strive to be unbiased and search for absolute truth .....admitting so when you haven't.....and doing the same when it comes to your sources while studying a subject.....your fooling yourself. I had a bit of dialogue with this guy .....he was trying to get support and help with some project (perhaps it was early in his channels infancy).....I was liking the concept etc but in one particular video he made assertations which I strongly objected to as being largely speculative while being portrayed as definitive. One must keep in mind content creators can be ..... just like movie producers and companies.....heavily guided by wanting to be appealing to a large number of viewers.....i.e.....more subs and views etc....and not necessarily focusing on historical accuracy . In my view there's no need to do such and provides no service towards our coming to understand ourselves and where we are and come from. It's cute and pretty but........ugggg 🙄🙄🙄🙄🙄

[@WW2TV]

Well, I was 53 years old when I made this video, so thanks for saying I look 27. May I ask what previous dialogue we had please? I don't recall any, and cannot find any previous comments by you on any other videos. With regards my beard, it's 2023, I think I can sport whatever I look I wish. If my goatee is a reason to not watch, I can live with that. It seems you don't like my style and content, which is fine. You don't have to watch. Luckily, some people do seem to like what I do, including a lot of highly regarded historians, who are happy to appear. FYI, I don't think I ever over-egg my historical credentials, but since you asked nicely. I have nearly 3 decades experience as a battlefield guide in Normandy. I have appeared in and consulted on documentaries by the BBC, History Channel, National Geographic and Best Defense Foundation. I have authored 2 books, written various articles and book chapters and spoken at various History conferences in Europe, and will be doing so in the USA next week. I've guested on podcasts and other KZbin channels. I receive thanks and acknowledgements in numerous books on the Normandy campaign, and have hosted over 700 shows on WW2TV. I take umbrage at your suggestion that WW2TV is all about hits and views. In fact, the opposite is true. Creating 10/15 minute history videos with lots of graphics is the best way to get huge viewers. Offering 90 minute deep-dives into subjects with academics is definitely not the best way. I also pride myself on being critical, unbiased and open-minded. That's exactly why I bring so many different historians on with sometimes controversial opinions about subjects. Would you also let me know please what, you specifically think I was wrong about in this reaction video? Obviously, with a reaction video, some of it is just opinion, but I'd like to know which criticisms/comments I made that provoked your comment please?

[@comikdebris]

Nothing personal against Armchair, But his history comes with a very American and progressive prospective. As a Canadian I find that off putting and uninteresting. As a history buff I find this as sad. I stop watching his videos many years ago.

[@alexfitzgeraldblack]

Gosh. The Juno stuff is all junk.

[@WW2TV]

It's not good is it?

[@BK-uf6qr]

Dude your way to sensitive. This is not about the Brit’s didn’t have it so bad. Not at all. Your reading into it way to much. Your Brit’s v other Allie’s, particularly the Americans, angle shines through on many shows. It’s lame and childish. Point out what you want. Not everyone is a dday tour guide. And who knows, there could be knowledgeable people who might disagree with you.

[@WW2TV]

Its KZbin, its a platform of opinions

[@untermunchkin4380]

Ignoring Stalin's imprecations about the Second Front for three years, the Brits finally crossed the channel in June 1944, after the Red Army defeated the Wehrmacht in the Battle of Moscow, Battle of Stalingrad, and Battle of Kursk----and far more importantly----after the Red Army completely demolished the Wehrmacht in Operation Bagration. Thereafter, the Western Allies performed dismally against the ENFEEBLED Wehrmacht in Market-Garden and Ardennes. Don't you armchair British yentas believe you should mention the strength of the opponent you faced in Overlord and thereafter? You have turned a blind eye to the Eastern Front because the shame is too painful to see.

[@WW2TV]

This is a reaction show to a show about DDay, why the fuck would I talk about the Red Army? I have devoted lots of shows on my channel to the Eastern Front, so wind your neck in!

[@Peorhum]

I don't like any of their videos.

[@porksterbob]

I think the problem with your critique is that you are not a content creator who makes original visuals as part of your show. You do really good spoken interviews and sometimes your very specialist guests bring in their own visual materials. However, watching this videos and the extra history critiques, you are very unappreciative of the extra difficulty, cost, and time it takes to make animations or things like original maps. They are KZbin content creators, like you, working with budgets of a few thousand dollars if they are lucky. It's the lack of charity that is upsetting. It is also a bit of humility that is lacking. Calling people lazy for making X mistake implies that you could have done better. You undoubtedly know what the proper Tobruk turret in that town looks like. But imagine you were directing this. Would you be able to afford, upon seeing the mistaken drawing, to pay the artist a an extra hundred additional pounds to redo it? What about the next mistake? And the next one? Would you take it upon yourself to spend dozens of hours to draw the storyboards with reference photos for the beaches on d day with accompanying photos to aid the artist? Maybe there were other more egregious mistakes that they corrected and they figured that "it conveys that it's a tank turret in concrete" was good enough for the visual. You have decried the people reading about these historical actions and saying things like "Monty messed up here. How could X general have done something so stupid," by rightfully pointing out that we weren't there. Most of the time, when we look at a "huge military mistake" there is actually a lot more nuance known by the people at the time that gets lost in the simplified story. Matching original visuals with narrative writing to match an event that happened 80 years ago is difficult. There is a whole new dimension (the visuals) where mistakes and inaccuracies (not to mention the need to keep it visually interesting) can creep in. This means it also a whole new dimension of self correction and error checking that needs to be done. Perhaps you could call up one of these channels and offer your cooperation to make an animated piece. Alternatively, you rightfully point out that there is a lot of overlap with your channels audience so maybe a chat about how they make these animations. An interview about the craft of online video popular history of WW2 would be interesting.

[@WW2TV]

I'm afraid I disagree - sorry. My point is why not get these videos right straight off the bat? There would be no need to pay an animator "an extra hundred pounds" to redo it if it was done properly in the first place. We've had accurate and detailed books about the bunkers in Normandy for decades. Why convey a tank turret in a bunker if the real bunker didn't have one? DDay had enough real peril and danger with what was there to encounter without making up fantasy bunkers. The historian obviously had Severloh's account so in it it states he was in an open fox-hole type position. We know Utah beach is flat, so don't add cliffs. Don't have the animator add ME109s and 190s to an airfield where there weren't any. Don't add SS insignia to a Wermacht Panzer uniform. I agree using original contemporary imagery is difficult. That's why some of my shows have limited photos. But in the case of these animations - they are literally creating it themselves. So create it correctly.

[@porksterbob]

@@WW2TV Except the artists and the historians writing it aren't always the same people and even if they are, it takes much more work to make sure visual + audio information is accurate than it does just for audio. To do visuals right, they probably have a story board artist who mocks up the visuals for the animators. (Maybe it is the animator) There are literally hundreds of drawings in this for a several minute video and each one of those is an additional opportunity to be wrong or inaccurate. On WW2TV, is when you interview someone about nurses in Singapore or the Japanese special naval landing forces, the person says the information. "Japanese lieutenant Xx did Y." You accept it and move on. If you want more detail, you can ask, but it isn't necessary. But imagine attaching visuals to that same story. For example, you want an animated visual for XX japanese lieutenant doing Y... easy peasy. What do we need to specify for our humble artist? After all, the audio just says "Lieutenant Xx did Y" What time is he in? What unit exactly is he a part of? What kind of uniform did those guys wear? What was the proper way to show Japanese naval infantry rank insignia in Rabaul in 1943? What was the terrain of the area this person is in? What kind of ship were they attached to? What color was everything? (You have to look this up because black and white photos) Who was he doing Y with? What time of day was it? What was the weather? What kind of weapon was he carrying? All of these questions have to be answered for an accurate drawing of "Lieutenant Xx doing Y" A picture is a worth a thousand words and that also means a thousand more ways an inaccuracy or error can pop up. The parts that are right won't be noticed but the parts that are wrong will be. There are of course books and pictures for all this, but, where an audio bit requires one person saying a sentence, drawing that correctly might require 4 books and several man hours to get all the necessary disparate pieces for an accurate six second visual representation. Sometimes the goal is to convey information quickly. Like adding a bf-109 as visual shorthand for "this is a German military airstrip" doesn't seem egregious even if there weren't any of that plane there at that time. Adding an active gunfight at the airstrip was much worse for the reasons you specified. You can see this tension between the animator and the actual script in the place about the German paratroopers at the beach. The artist drew German paratroopers doing a drop sort of out of a cardboard box held by a German officer. The armchair historian kbew that was misleading so he put a bright red text box on that drawing saying "the German paratroopers had not deployed as via parachute since Crete in 1941".

[@WW2TV]

@@porksterbob I get a lot of what you are saying, but why put the Ostroop in non-military clothing for example? I don't see these as accidents so much as deliberate decisions. Animation takes time I get that, but I just don't see how such errors can make it past editorial review. But as you saw/heard most of my criticisms were of the factual information

[@porksterbob]

@@WW2TV On the ostlegion, I think they made a poor decision to differentiate by putting them in civilian clothing. On the other hand, what would have been a good way to show them in different military clothing? As far as I can tell, they wore regular Wehrmacht uniforms. The artists could have added the little colored nationality shields they had but that would be less visually apparent and also have the problem of having to make sure that the Ostruppen shields drawn were the ones actually there. (Was the Azeri legion there? What is the insignia for that one Korean guy?) Drawing a visual that says "Non German troops in Wehrmacht uniforms some of whom are actually essentially prisoners" is a difficult bit of visual storytelling and I would have liked to hear your thoughts. Its like how you criticised the drawing of the ears and bellies battalions, no they didn't have active wounds, but how else are you going to show they had these injuries visually? It would be better if the critique wasn't just "Here's how they did it wrong." But also had some ruminations or suggestions on how to do a better, more accurate bit of visual storytelling. People will use a single tank drawing to represent a panzer division. They will draw three riflemen and leave out the support troops. In extra history, they don't even draw the arms unless it's necessary. These are all visual choices and they aren't always easy. When reviewing animated or original visuals, it would be great if you tried to put yourself more in the shoes of the creators and talked through some of the tradeoffs of the visual representation.

[@WW2TV]

@@porksterbob So perhaps show the Ostroopen with Flags above their heads of the Countries they were from, maybe show winter clothing? Maybe show different complexions as you say? But they way the depicted them was poor. Ultimately, you have the right to criticise my criticism, just as I have the right to criticise in the first place. Just as the people who e-mail me telling me I'm a wanker have that right. The people who tell me what we didn't say in a show rather than what we did say. The thing is though, these animated videos have massive reach and have a duty to get things right

[@brianyee7138]

Hi Paul