The 80th Anniversary of the Battle of Britain: A Conversation with James Holland and Rob Citino, PhD

[@dancolley4208]

I am amazed at how I've been fooled by historians who failed to examine the dawn of WW2 in the ETO carefully, specifically, the number of things that Britain (soon to be the Allies) had going FOR them. Beginning with Hitler's ineptitude, his lack of sensible planning and the long periods of absence from his "office" steamrolled him. It was like the old saw "he was writing checks that he couldn't possibly cover." This presentation has been one of the best I've heard on the subject of the Battle of Britain. It was like taking a nice, long hot shower after a particularly dirty job. Doors were opened ... lights turned on. I had always suspected that the Battle was not quite as close run as I was being led to believe but having a job to go to every day, I didn't have time to do the research necessary to reach the conclusions reached it this program. Thank you very much. This is exactly why I watch this type of programming: TO LEARN.

[@tjdelio]

You should read James Holland's books. He does an excellent job laying out the information, not just about a particular battle or campaign, but all the other pieces that come into play. His book on the Battle of Britain doesn't get to the actual battle until half way through the book, but it's still really engaging. The first half of the book covers the start of the war and the Battle of France.

[@colinlangford6258]

I lost an Uncle during the Battle of Britain, Fg Of John Swift Bell RAF, he was based when KIA at RAF Kenley, regular service (BR), 616 Sqn. KIA 30 August 1940 around midday in Spitfire X4248 shot down in a head on attack on Bf 109s over Thames Estuary. May have been injured or mechanical issue but unfortunately he could not return to RAF Kenley due to heavy bombing, so was vectored to RAF West Malling. Unfortunately John crashed and burned on approach to RAF West Malling airfield. I never had the privilege to meet John however, I continue to honour his memory in anyway I can. Thank you so much for highlighting some of the historical myths, and bringing the truth to light. My late Father Major Lawrence Langford 58th Northamptonshire Regiment, was also a Dunkirk veteran; he was a SGT in the BEF in France in 1939/40, his recollections expressed to me are a mirror of what you have portrayed. I have often thought that my long lost family heros sent a special message to me, that I must never forget my families sacrifices, as I was born on VE day 1958 - my Birthday being the 08/05/1958!

[@RogueCylon]

My dad and seven uncles were in the war. My dad was in the RAF, keeping spitfires in the air. One of my uncles escaped a Japanese POW camp and crossed allied lines in Burma, pretty much as skeleton.they gave a lot to GB.

[@douglashestonlancaster7141]

Dddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddsddddddsssssssss

[@timburr4453]

Love listening to these two! fascinating and informative...two scholars who have such a passion for history and present it in an entertaining way

[@RemoteViewr1]

Very enjoyable. Gave strategic insights that I see no where else. Mr. Hilland is a great teacher.

[@barebp]

James and Rob. Honestly big names leading the forefront of next gen curiosity and knowledge of ww2. Important stuff to know in this day and age. I just hope the youth understands and appreciate what ww2 has done for our modern world today.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

The Battle of Britain was the start of the Axis failing to win WW2. The allied victory began there.

[@rodney19821982]

James Holland - informative as always!

[@Chiller01]

A little late to this party. Just want to say how refreshing it was to have a Brit and. Yank in constructive discourse around WW2.

[@dreamjackson5483]

Another fantastic talk. Thanks!

[@linnharamis1496]

Great discussion- Thank you!👍

[@kurtwpg]

I don't recall seeing Holland before, but when Rob Citino defers to you, you must be pretty damn good.

[@ieatoutoften872]

The first paragraph in the description of this video says it all. "The fate of the world was truly in the balance." In the midst of the Battle of Britain Winston S. Churchill sent a special gift to Franklin D. Roosevelt. It was a treasure chest. And in that treasure chest were the engineering drawings for the best water-cooled, internal combustion engine in the world -- the Rolls Royce Merlin. Also, in the chest was some stuff that would help American engineers radically improve radar for U.S. Navy ships. The British success bought Albert Einstein time to write a letter to Franklin D. Roosevelt, and it bought time for both of them to move forward with the ultimate super weapon that German scientists (still in Germany) had a head start in developing. I read somewhere that the U.S. Army was ranked something like 17th in the world in 1940 due to its relatively small number of men. The British women proved how much that women can do to help win a battle. Their radar work was a well kept secret, but their factory work was not so secret. For every fighter plane the German works (factories) built, the British factories built two fighter planes. Faced with the demonstrated facts, the American war industry started to give American women an opportunity for the first time. Thank you, from one of the 13 colonies.

[@nickdanger3802]

Einstein-Szilard Letter Sachs delivered the letter on October 11, 1939. The Ford Motor Company was asked to produce Merlins at Trafford Park, Stretford, near Manchester, and building work on a new factory was started in May 1940. wiki Battle of Britain 10 July - 31 October 1940

[@rosscampbell1173]

Unlike the axis, the allies trusted each other enough to cooperate. The Merlin made the P51 the best fighter of WW2.

[@Conn30Mtenor]

13:35 Maurice Gamelin's HQ was in a Chateaux near Paris that didn't even have a radio. Messages came hourly by motorcycle courier. He wanted to keep a closer eye on the politics of Paris more than have an effective HQ.

[@sharonwhiteley6510]

Two topnotch historians discuss the Battle of Britain

[@IndianaDiecastRacing]

fascinating discussion, love the point about how you can't consider any of these factors in isolation....kind of a microcosm of WWII in general.....each small part has an effect on the rest

[@Stephen-wb3wf]

Two Legends. Love both of these guys.

[@richardrichard5409]

I've never understood just why Bomber Command always get little mention when it comes to the Battle of Britain. They were active over the German airfields when ever weather permitted and sadly, Churchills famous few speech is always edited to exclude them. 😎

[@landsea7332]

15:46 - " Its really important to understand the moment of greatest peril for Britain is Monday the 27th of May 1940. " Great Thanks goes out to James Holland for emphasizing the importance of the British War Cabinet Crisis . The Wehrmacht attacked on the morning of May 10th , 1940 . That evening , Churchill became Prime minister and formed a coalition government . By May 26th, the BEF and French 1st army were trapped at Dunkirk , the Belgian army was in the process of capitulating, and the estimate was that only 45,000 could be evacuated. The BEF could loose 200,000 men. FDR and the US was maintaining its position of isolationism . In this context, the Italian ambassador met with Lord Halifax , and offered to be an intermediary in negotiating terms with Hitler. Lord Halifax wanted to explore this option. The war cabinet ( Churchill, Lord Halifax, Chamberlain , Attlee and Greenwood ) had a series of heavily debated meetings concerning this. On May 28th , Churchill did an end round on Halifax , and was able to persuade the 25 (?) member outer cabinet to keep fighting . Had Churchill not been able to to persuade them, Hitler would have been able to release the entire Wehrmacht on the Soviets in the spring of 1941. The world would have become a different place. For this reason the "War Cabinet Crisis " is one of the defining moments of the 20th century. More historians should be pointing out the significance of this crisis . . .

[@diedertspijkerboer]

There's a difference between (1) having tools that might do the job, (2) doing the job all-in from your perspective with uncertain outcome and (3) knowing that the job has been done successfully. The only one we really know is the third and stories and data about the others.

[@danl.909]

Mr. Holland is confused about the nature and use of fighter armament on Messerschmitt 109s around the time of the BoB. German pilots did not use their rifle-caliber machine guns to find the range and then fire off a cannon shell from the 20mm weapon. Just because it was called a “cannon” did not mean it was used like an artillery piece! The weapon was called a “cannon” because it fired exploding shells, but it was, in essence, a large-caliber machine gun, and was used as such. As for the relative effectiveness of Spitfire vs. ‘109 armament, the weight of fire of each gave little to choose between the two. The Spitfire’s eight .303 machine guns could put a serious amount of lead on target in a very short time, enough to saw an opponent to bits in seconds. Which was better? The ‘109, marginally but not decisively. The cannon's low muzzle velocity and limited ammunition capacity meant the armament was not markedly superior to the RAF fighter's eight machine guns. The point about the ‘109 having an advantage because its iron engine was more resistant to gunfire than the alloy Merlin is just silly. Fighters did not stop their opponents’ engines by shooting their crankcases to bits, but by knocking out their coolant, fuel, and oil systems. As far as combat performance was concerned, the marks of airplanes in service were leapfrogging one another in small increments all through 1940-41-42, with the Spitfires pulling ahead after that. In scraps between BoB-era ‘109s and Spitfires, it was down to which plane had the better pilot or the initial advantage as to who would win.

[@grantjacob7327]

I suppose he's just BoBbing along!.

[@RogueCylon]

He’s not confused at all. He well knows his history.

[@landsea7332]

Differences between Bf109's vs Spitfires & Hurricanes are almost a mute point * - as you mentioned , pilot training, experience and skill played a significant part. - But the reality was , aerial combat was really about attacking from above , and shooting the enemy in the back , before they even knew anyone was there . - The national air defense communication system Dowding created , allowed Keith Park to instruct 11 Group's squadrons to concentrate on the bombers , and avoid the Bf109's . Park was really running a form of aerial gorilla war far - shoot for 15 seconds and get out . As opposed to Leigh Mallory's "big wing." - By June 1940, Britain was producing about 420 fighters a month - out producing the Luftwaffe . * except that the Luftwaffe was set up as a tactical air force - so Bf109's had a short range escorting bombers and fighting over Britain . The longer range Bf110's proved to be no match for Spitfires and Hurricanes . . Ralph Sorley should be given the credit , as the person who conducted the tests , and convinced Dowding to change the specification so that RAF fighters would have 8 brownings . .

[@DannyBoy777777]

@@landsea7332 The Luftwaffe was not a tactical air force. That's one of the biggest myths of the war.

[@christopherjordan3531]

Locked in with cv19, thanks so much two of my favorite writers/ speakers. Interested to know your opinions on German aircraft. Mr Holland do you feel about them like you do the mg-42 or Tiger tank? (LOL) I have a BMW so I get it completely.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

He wasn't a user of the MG 42 or Tiger tank. I prefer listening to actual user veterans. To a man they had high praise for their Tigers. Read the memoirs of Carius, Von Rosen etc.

[@Chiller01]

@@lyndoncmp5751 Actually the one step removed after action analysis by the bean counters and historians provides more valuable and accurate information. The historians have less bias, more data and the advantage of multiple viewpoints. An individual combatant is limited to his particular moment and place in a much wider conflict. In addition the combatant has strong biases related to his individual experiences while in action and on occasion the motivation to exaggerate those experiences. I wouldn’t go to these guys for opinions on German small arms or armour but I would listen to historians that specialize in those areas.

[@philipritson8821]

@@lyndoncmp5751 The point is that in WWII the Germans could have deployed far more Bren guns than MG42's had they adopted the former weapon. No doubt German kit was great, but being so resource intensive means they were produced in smaller numbers than needed.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@cmillerdvm1 Nope. The user trumps all, particularly when it's a consensus opinion.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

@philipritson8821 Actually the MG42 was a cheaper and more simplified version of the MG34 so the Germans DID choose a quicker and more cost effective way to mass produce a general purpose machine gun. They made nearly half a million of them.

[@henryviii6341]

brilliant show.

[@andrewgeraghty7495]

Dowding considered switching Fairey Battle pilots to fighters, but these crews were held back to attack Seelowe invaders, even though the aircraft type was obsolete and dad previously taken heavy losses.

[@Chris-um3se]

Riveting SEGMENT Double BRAVO

[@rosscampbell1173]

As an American tourist at a B&B in Inverness Scotland in 1995, I had the proprietor tell me at dinner that the Americans were “oversexed, overpaid and over here”. I’d heard that before, but I was shocked. (I later explained that British women didn’t kiss unless things got serious, while Americans kissed, just dating, so British women thought us fast and we thought them easy ), so I stammered “but we helped you!” and she replied “well, no one asked you to!” I couldn’t sleep thinking about those 19-20 yr old American boys away from home, sacrificing their lives for a war that wasn’t theirs. I told her so the next morning. I think there are Britons who wanted the Nazis to win.

[@petrs65]

Very interesting and educational. However, as much as comment that Britain was far from military defeat even if they had lost entire EF is very accurate, the fact that they stayed in the active war meant full bancrupcy and lost of many basis as early as 1940.

[@landsea7332]

11:58 - " Its got America " Interesting presentation , however , FDR and the Americans were maintaining a position of isolationism . Actually, when Reynaud and later Churchill asked the US for help the answer was no . When Churchill asked FDR for help a second time , FDR thought that Britain was done , and asked Canadian prime minister MacKenzie King to take in the Royal Navy if Britain capitulated . .

[@dancolley4208]

I don't know if Gen. George Patton really said this, but it is credited to him in the movie: "Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity [sic]." The French reliance on the Maginot Line was their monument. It's laughable to think that they would come to a fortification and NOT go around it. The Nazis were not particularly respectful of borders and Belgium was in no position to do anything about it.

[@lyndoncmp5751]

And yet Patton failed to go around the fortress of Metz and bypass it. Instead he spent months bashing his head against it.

[@amerigo88]

A key point made by Holland was that the loss of the entire BEF on the Continent would NOT have meant the end of the war for Britain. After all, the British Army played a pretty minor role for about a year following the fall of France. It also would have echoed the near total destruction of the "contemptible little army" of British professionals that fought the opening few weeks of World War I. That core of about 100,000 should have been training the millions to follow once the Great War turned into a lengthy siege. Instead, they were basically obliterated at places like Mons and during the "race to the sea" as both sides entrenched from Switzerland to the North Sea during August and September 1914. Britain did not surrender after its former colonial army was reduced to a remnant.

[@seamusandpat]

It is worth noting that of the 338,000 rescued at Dunkirk, about 140,000 were French and Belgian soldiers of which about 120,000 were repatriated back to occupied France!

[@DannyBoy777777]

@@seamusandpat not occupied-France. They were returned prior to Fall Rot.

[@seandouglas5429]

They had the plane numbers during the Battle of Britain. Approximately 2000 fighters throughout. They didn’t have the training or pilots

[@richardrichard5409]

At 12:30 I'd argue that the US were clearly on board with the British stance. In the US, there were many anti UK street protests and very few pro UK. Congress had many active pro Nazi members. And, it wasn't until Germany declared war on the US in December 1941 that the US nation properly came to the help of the UK.

[@jthunders]

Roosevelt provoked Germany by shipping armaments to Britain and providing destroyer escorts. Then he ordered the destroyers to depth charge any submarines en route. USS Kearny and Reuben James, sunk November 1941. Hitler was insane but not stupid he wanted to avoid a two front war. And that’s nonsense about anti UK rallies. Didn’t happen. There were peace rallies but not « anti UK » rallies Who were the pro Nazi members of Congress? The fantasy history about the US role pre Pearl Harbor never ceases to amaze me.

[@ryanmarquez9404]

You started the war now you reap the whirlwind

[@kaskakowalska9929]

Sir Hugh Dowding said ‘Had it not been for the magnificent work of the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of battle would have been the same’. In other words he said if it wasn't for the Poles the British would've scr*wed up. And what thanks did they get? During the 'victory' parade every nation that fought was invited but not the Poles. Brits downgraded Poles accomplishments just so that they won't upset stalin, then our 'allies' sold our country to stalin during Teheran conference. But now how times have changed... it's like this biblical cycle that those who come last shall now come first. Poland is one of the safest countries in entire Europe, no terrorist attacks or no go zones whilst our allies and our former enemy are all crumbling down.

[@Phantomrasberryblowe]

80% of the pilots in the Battle of Britain were British and 100% of the planes were.

[@kaskakowalska9929]

@@Phantomrasberryblowe kzbin.info/www/bejne/iqqQZZ2hbph5qKc It's not about the battle of Britain but this is the very thing that 'won you' the war. P.S. So sorry Poland couldn't provide planes... we were kind of bombed and attacked from every angle. Don't worry though, we'll never forget and forgive our 'allies' for leaving our nation standing alone. Being attacked by your enemies is one thing but to be betrayed by allies is even worse. Trust me no Pole will ever forget about this. And thanks that propaganda in UK finally admitted who actually broke enigma. Had to wait 70+ years but still better late than never.

[@Phantomrasberryblowe]

@@kaskakowalska9929 What are you talking about? Britian _went to war for Poland._ Britain could have just sat back and done nothing or joined the Axis. Like most other countries. Show some gratitude. Britain provided safe refuge for many Poles. You’re welcome. As for enigma, German cryptographers made significant changes that defeated further Polish attempt to break Enigma ciphers. One change was the introduction of 2 new scramblers, raising the number of scramblers from 3 to 5. To break the new Enigma ciphers, the Poles now had to determine not only the internal writings of the 2 new scramblers but also which of the 60 scrambler arrangements was used for the daily key. The second major change was the increase of the number of cables from 6 to 10, meaning that 10 instead of 6 pairs of letters could be swapped. The Poles were unable to break the modified version of the machine which was more complex to break than the version the Poles had dealt with. Also, the Enigma-breaking method Alan Turing was more sophisticated and clever than the method devised by the Poles. And do I need to remind you who broke the more complex Lorenz ciphers? Enough with the propaganda.

[@DannyBoy777777]

Hugh Dowding didn't say any such thing.

[@localbod]

@@DannyBoy777777 Commander-in-Chief of Fighter Command, Air Chief Marshal Sir Hugh Dowding, who once was so reluctant to allow Polish pilots into battle, summarised their contribution in probably the most telling way: 'Had it not been for the magnificent work of the Polish squadrons and their unsurpassed gallantry, I hesitate to say that the outcome of battle would have been the same'. This is taken from the imperial war museum site. Link: www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-polish-pilots-who-flew-in-the-battle-of-britain

[@tarjei99]

The Hurricane should have had cannons since they had nice thick wings which could hold the early cannons.

[@walteralter1686]

Is there anyone elucidating the conflict between Dowding and Baader? One account I read had it that Dowding was playing a "broken wing" deception strategy, straggling his interceptors into the Luftwaffe formations willy nilly while feeding the Moselyite communication channels to Berlin false stories about disrupted RAF communications, thus luring Goering into greater effort and greater losses thinking that the next push will destroy the RAF. Meanwhile, Baader, not reading this show of weakness correctly, stumps noisily for coordinated formations attacking the Luftwaffe bomber streams getting him posted by Dowding out of his hair and away from the front, noisily to the point that, after the Battle of Britain, the powerful Baader faction in government forces the resignation of Dowding, a grave injustice by any measure and an indication of how political intrigues in times of war can bollox one's own chances of victory.

[@DannyBoy777777]

The issues raised about the Luftwaffe being a tactical air force is simplistic- German air doctrine was certainly more inclusive that the strategic bombing centric British and Americans, and the close air support centric Red Air Force. Interestingly James Corum, a friend of Citino's, wrote "Creating the Operational Air War" about the Luftwaffe, and with Richard Muller, "German air doctrine 1911-1945". The documents sugggest close air support was not an immediately priority. The destruction of the enemy air force and interdiction was prioritised; the first mission has to be carried out strategically against factories, operationally against airfields and tactically in combat.

[@richardvernon317]

The only thing the RAF didn't do that the Luftwaffe did in 1940 was dive bombing. Battlefield interdiction was very much part of Bomber Command's mission when the war started with two of its five operational groups (No 1 and 2) being equipped with light Bombers (Battles and Blenheims). Number 1 group was moved to France and became the Advanced Air Striking Force and they took a sizable amount of 2 Group's Blenheims with them. The Battle's got the shit kicked out of them over Sedan during the Battle of France. Of course the other RAF aircraft used for supporting the Army, the Westland Lysander, also got the shit kicked out of it in France by the Luftwaffe.

[@DannyBoy777777]

@@richardvernon317 Not completely accurate. The Battle's losses were comparable with the Ju 87 which lost a third of its strength. The Lysander's losses were less than 20. I know all about Sedan.

[@dennisweidner288]

Brilliant discussion. Dr. Holland is absolutely correct. It is amazing the number of people who think that Britain did not play an important role in the War. The Battle of Britain turned the war into a war of attrition that the Germans were no going to win. I would go a bit further the war in the West was much more important than commonly believed. People hear the numbers on the Ostkrieg suggesting that it was the only important front. But notice that the numbers presented are always manpower. Now that is is absolutely correct. Most of the German Army was deployed in the Ostkrieg and most of the losses were suffered there. No doubt about that. But anyone who knows anything about military history knows that manpower is only one-factor in military power. If it was, China would have won the War. The War in the West forced Hitler to commit most of the NAZI war economy on the est, leaving the Ostheer poorly supplied and supported. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/eco/sbc-gie.html

[@grantjacob7327]

Also the German manpower on the ground ,to protect the German cities from being bombed constantly by the RAF from 1940 and from late 1942,by the USAAF. The number of RAF Bomber crews that died,was about 55,000,A loss rate of 50 percent.As bad as the loss rate of the Red Army. The West won in the air and later on the ground. The Soviets on the ground.it was in the interest of the West,to supply the Soviet Army with trucks in particular,as the mobilisation of the Red Army hastened the defeat of Hitlers Germany.At time there was a genuine worry,that Hitler's scientists were developing the nuclear bomb.London would of been high on his list,to drop it on.Hence Hitler had to be defeated as quick as possible.

[@dennisweidner288]

@@grantjacob7327 Grant, while I agree with you that the War in the West was vital, the decisive campaign of the War was the Ost Krieg. It is true that RAF Bomber Command had a high loss rate, but it was a small part of the overall Allied force. Over 25 million Soviet citizens perished in the War. And something like 85 percent of the German casualties was sustained in the Ostkrieg., It was in the East that the Red Army tore the heart out of the German Army. The Western contribution was to divert the German war economy from adequately equipping and supporting the Ostheer. As a result, Hitler sent the Ostheer east on foot with horse-drawn carts. You are not likely to defeat the Soviet Union with an unmotorized army moving on foot. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/eco/sbc-gie.html And of course as you point out Lend Lease was very supportive of the Soviets, You are also correct about the strategic bombing campaign, although the Germans used very little manpower to man their extensive AA defenses. They used boy power Hitler Youth boy too young to fight at the front. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/gd/flak.html More important was the diversion of anti-tank guns from the Ostkrieg as well as the massive quantities of munitions fired up into the sky rather than at Red army tanks.

[@grantjacob7327]

Dennis Weidner totally agree about the role of the Red Army being decisive. The Red Army were very much handicapped,particularly in the initial stage of the German/Soviet conflict,not only fighting Hitler's forces,but also Stalins paranoia,through the use of political commissars attached to Soviet army.But I would not say the role of the RAF Bomber Command was a SMALL part of the overall Allied force,as only the bombers could destroy the factory's,and the homes of the factory workers,also the rail lines and infrastructure to hinder war production,until the arrival of the Western Allied armies.When you used the term Allies,are you referring to the Western Allies,or referring to Western and Eastern forces combined?. It is only due to Hitler's invasion of the USSR ,that the USSR were co belligerents with the Western Allies,but as you correctly pointed out,vital to the fall of Hitler's Germany.Regarding the supplies of material for the German war effort,before Hitler's invasion of the USSR,Stalin willingly supplied oil and raw materials to the Nazis which was used to fight the British and French.Stalin just used the Communist cause to gain power.He had far more in common with Hitler and Mussolini,Than Marx,Lenin or Trotsky!.When on a rare occasion,Stalin visited his aged Mother.She asked him "What he did for a living "(Stalins mother lived alone,with no contact with the outside world).Stalins reply to his mother was."You know the Tsar,Well I am like the Tsar".

[@dennisweidner288]

@@grantjacob7327 Well, when I am thinking clearly, I use the term Allies in the sense of the Western Allies as you correctly point out, the Soviets were co-belligerents. However, I am not always careful in that regard. I agree with you, that the strategic bombing campaign was an important factor in the War. But not because it destroyed German war industries. This only began to really affect the Germans in 1944, before that the damage done was not massive. But it did force the Germans to divert massive resources from the Ostkrieg to the war in the West. As did other aspects of the War in the West like the Battle of the Atlantic. As a result, the Ostheer was poorly supplies and supported. The Ostkrieg was the decisive campaign of the War, but the red Army was victorious in part because so much of German industry went to support the war in the wrest instead of the Ostheer. It is absurd to invade the Soviet Union with a largely unmotorized fore moving east on foot with horse-drawn carts. www.histclo.com/essay/war/ww2/air/eur/sbc/eco/sbc-gie.html

[@grantjacob7327]

Yes it is now known from German records found after the Second World War,that the Bombing of German industry was not really effective until 1944.But in the earlier part of the war (before the invasion of the USSR) in particular,it was at the time,what was perceived THEN the only effective way of hitting Germany directly, it is only after the war,that it was known how ineffective the earlier raids were.Off course as navigation aids improved and fighter escorts could shield the bombers deeper into Germany,plus the troops of the Western Allies landing ,then advancing into The North Western part of Europe,could bombing be carried out more effectively.

[@thefollandgnat]

Great stuff, but if the guy says "and all the rest of it" one more time I'll literally rip my own head off.

[@tarjei99]

The French had radios, but refused to use them. And the French didn't make an example of any General.

[@ppumpkin3282]

Let's not forget, it was Britain and France who declared war on Germany.

[@rosscampbell1173]

Let’s not forget what led up to it. (Kind of important)

[@bigvinnie3]

we dealt with Stalin and he was pretty despicable IMO as much as Hitler. I think rob was spot on when he said it was because Hitler was a liar. His politics were much less of a concern to the allies than the fact that he couldn't be trusted. By 1940 to many agreements had been reneged upon for the west to trust Hitler again.

[@vitman2409]

Hitler couldn't be trusted? Tell me any politican that can be trusted, they are all puppets anyway, including back then. Hitler was a puppet, and so was Churchill, Roosevelt and Stalin.

[@zeronzemesh7718]

I think France's drubbing by the Germans was actually 90% French ineptitude. There was absolutely no excuse for an army that size and well equipped to be placed in a position to be totally encircled. The French generals were way too old to be leading anything but a retirement home bingo game. Possibly only Stalin was dumb enough to make those mistakes, but Stalin had around 1000 miles, and millions of bodies, to let more qualified people figure out how to overcome his ineptitude.

[@timburr4453]

indeed the more I read about it the more I see them winning in spite of Stalins ineptitude

[@wojbla01]

Gentlemen, WW2 was started by nazi Germany and soviet Russia. They divided Europe in heinous Hitler-Stalin pact. In 1940 Britain stood alone supported by mostly Polish and Canadian pilots. For the benefit of Britain the Poles who came into the battle at the most decisive moment were highly experienced and trained Air Force regulars who previously flew against the Huns in Poland and France. And it was Sep 15 th 1940 when the Squadron 303 PAF set the standing RAF record, 17 enemies shot down, own losses 3, 2 pilots survived. Forgotten fact is that during the Battle , Luftwaffe flew mostly on the fuel supplied by the then allied soviet Russia.

[@Phantomrasberryblowe]

Polish 303 Squadron overclaimed their kills in the Battle of Britain. Early 3 times over. The highest scoring confirmed kill squadron in the Battle of Britain was British 603 Squadron with 57 confirmed kills and nearly all of them were BF109s unlike Polish 303 which mostly shot down bombers.

[@landsea7332]

@ wojbla01 " Luftwaffe flew mostly on the fuel supplied by the then allied soviet Russia. " Well I think American war profiteering comes into play here . As I recall, it was a combination of General Motors who developed tetrahedral lead , and Rod's "cocktail" that resulted in RAF fighters using BAM 100 ( 100 octane fuel) This was shipped to Britain by a certain American oil company . While at the same time , a subsidiary of that same American oil company , was showing the chemists at IG Farben the process on how to make tetrahedral lead - but in the end, they shipped it to Germany . There was a Congressional hearing about this . .

[@davidtaylor351]

As to national contingents in the Battle of Britain. The top 3 by numbers of pilots were....By far the largest - 1. The UK. - 2. Polish. - 3. New Zealand. Then Czechoslovakia and Canada. So no disrespect at all to Canadians. But you skipped over a couple to get to them. And of course there were also Australians South Africans Rhodesians and some US pilots etc etc. It was a team effort led by the UK.

[@chinguunerdenebadrakh7022]

17:19 DISCOMBOBULATE

[@alejandroyepez]

I love when i got to sleep with a New perspective

[@krukpolny8505]

Siwek Kazimierz Pilot 315 Mustang III Oficer RAF. Google. // Sabaton - Aces In Exile PL. You Tube.

[@USAACbrat]

The best propaganda victory was the run-up from battle of britan to the lend lease act.

[@casparcoaster1936]

What i remember, taking a buddie's .410 shotgun hunting when I was 19, it made me feel like I could and would kill anyone who wanted a gun fight, NAZI or neighbor, consequences be damned. If had a Spitfire or Hurricane & half dozen hot 303 guns, knew how to use more than willing to go die for anyone or anything, just for the fun!!!!! Kids are ready to kill.

[@ieatoutoften872]

"Meanwhile [R.A.F.] Bmber Command is attacking all these [Luftwaffe] air fields in northern France, and in targets in Germany as well." (33:03)

[@Conn30Mtenor]

The UK was NEVER in danger of being invaded, so that blows up the myth that the BoB was a turning point. The battle was ineptly handled from the German side- they never fully appreciated the role of the Chain home radar stations; Goering interfered in both strategy and tactical planning and even when they started attacking the sector stations and main airfields no station was out of action for any length of time.

[@MahmutAyabakan]

Hernandez Mark Clark Maria Martinez Larry