Comments by "Retrosicotte" (@Retrosicotte) on "Military History Visualized" channel.

  1. I'm glad for the mention of the French there, but equally there is a modern myth starting to take hold that the French "were the only reason that Dunkirk survived and fought an amazing last stand to let the British escape and thus France should be credited with everything for protecting and saving the British". This is of course absolute nonsense. It's equally as bad as those who like to pretend the French weren't there at all. It reeks of the same sort of lines of people that like to try and claim Napoleon "won" Waterloo in hysterical pro-France narrative. Hopefully everyone can see sense and realise that both Britain and France were there. Both fought, both partook in making Dunkirk the sucessful evacuation it was, and lets hope there's much less "all this side" type myths starting. Real life in history is NEVER that simple.
    93
  2. One of the things people seem do so often is treat "having more men/material in the battle shows that it wasn't the skill of that force that won". I see it so often, "Oh they only won because they had more people". Being able to amass, supply, train, organise, network, coordinate and focus a greater amount of men, material and supplies than your foe is in ITSELF a skill. Logistics are the weapons of winning wars. For some reason this always gets overlooked. A force that can compromise the enemy's logistics (as the British did) and then protect and bring their own supplies to bear in larger numbers (as the British also did) is a force that is winning the victory on its merits. Real life wars aren't won by trying to get a 'badass' small number field victory. They're won by those who can control the big numbers and use them effectively in the bigger picture. Wish more people would remember that when discussing the often criminally underappreciated contribution of the British and their Commonwealth/In-Exile allies in the war.
    58