Comments by "John Burns" (@johnburns4017) on "Military History not Visualized" channel.

  1.  @samuel10125  The British won the Battle of Dunkirk. The British BEF was only 9% of the total allied forces in France and the Low Countries. The German advance was halted in France as the British with a vastly inferior force stopped them at Arras. Some German soldiers turned and ran. Directive 13, issued by German Supreme Headquarters on 24 May 1940 stated specifically for the annihilation of the French, English and Belgian forces in the Dunkirk pocket. The Luftwaffe was ordered to prevent the escape of the British forces across the English Channel. The German southern advance was stopped at Arras by the British with a numerically inferior force. The Germans never moved much further after. The Germans could not have taken Dunkirk, they would have been badly beaten in and around the town. The Luftwaffe was defeated over Dunkirk by the RAF with the first showing of the Spitfire en-mass. More German than allied planes were destroyed in the Dunkirk pocket. The first defeat of the Nazis in WW2 was in the air by the British over Dunkirk. Only six small warships were sunk at Dunkirk by the Germans as the effectiveness of the Luftwaffe blunted. The British were retreating after the French collapsed in front of them - a programme already in motion, a programme already in motion before the Germans showed up, as General Gort saw the disjointed performance of the French forces in front of him. If the French collapsed the small BEF had no hope against the large German force heading west. The French were amongst the British when General Gort decided to take the men back to England, as he did not trust the French in a joint counter-attack. French General Wiegand held a meeting to arrange a counter-attack and never invited General Gort head of the BEF. Gort was under the command of Weigand. Gort heard of the meeting and rushed to be a part. He got there after the French and Belgians had left. He ordered the evacuation having no faith in the elderly French leaders. All armies retreat and regroup when the need is there. There happened to be a body of water in the line of the retreat. Were they to move down the English coast and enter France further west with more men from England? The Germans did not know what was to be the next British or allied move. The Germans could not have taken Dunkirk trying for nearly a week failing in the process. The British retreat operation was carried out as planned and in orderly fashion. All bridges to Dunkirk were destroyed by the allies. The British counter-attack at Arras was with outdated Matilda 1 tanks, which only had machine guns, and a few of the brand new Matilda 2 tanks. The Germans fled in droves. In desperation the Germans turned a 88mm AA gun horizontal successful against the Matilda 2 - their conventional anti-tank weapons and tanks could not penetrate the tank. The Matilda 2 would roll over German gun emplacements killing the gunners. Rommel thought he had been hit by a force three times the size, which made them stop and rethink. The Germans countered with their superior numbers pushing back the British who fell back consolidating towards Dunkirk. The British resolve and the new Matilda 2 made the Germans sit up and think about a street fight in Dunkirk against a consolidated force still with its weapons and the new Matilda 2 - the 88mm would be useless in Dunkirk streets while the Matilda 2 would be in its element, with the Matlida 2 easily destroying the Panzer MkIII & MkIVs. The Matilda 2 could knock out any German tank at the time, while no German tank could knock it out. The Germans were expecting the Matilda 2 to be shipped over in numbers and for all they knew many were in Dunkirk. The Germans could not stop the tanks coming as the British controlled the skies with a CAP and the waters of the Channel. Not a good prospect for the Germans. A Dunkirk street fight was a fight the German troops were untrained and unequipped for and unwise to get involved in. Von Rundstedt and von Kluge suggested to Hitler that German forces around the Dunkirk pocket cease their advance, consolidating preventing an Allied break out from Dunkirk. Hitler agreed with the support of the Wehrmacht. German preoccupation rightly was with an expected attack from the fluid mainly French and some British forces to the south of the German line, not from dug-in Dunkirk which was too much of a formidable consolidated opponent, taking substantial resources to seize. The German column had Allied troops to each side with soft marshland to the south west of Dunkirk unsuitable for tanks. If German forces had engaged in a street battle for Dunkirk, they would be vulnerable on their weak flank from the south. In short the fast moving panzers were now static; German forces attacking Dunkirk in a battle of attrition would have been largely wiped out. The German columns were consolidating their remaining armour and the important resupply from Germany, which was slow as it was via horses, for an expected attack by the British and French from the south - or maybe a combined attack from the south and the Dunkirk pocket. The Germans attacked on a remarkably narrow front. They had over-stretched their supply lines. The Germans had no option but to stop, being more concerned at defending from the mainly French forces in the south which were viewed as a greater threat than Dunkirk. French general Weigand implemented his creation of hedgehogs to attack German lines from the sides, with success - hedgehogs were adopted post war by NATO being a part of the tactics until the 1970s. What were the Germans thinking? Are the British retreating to England from Dunkirk to move down the English coast and re-enter France further south with fresh forces, including Canadians and the new Matilda 2 tanks, which they feared, and join up with the French forces there? Are they going to reinforce the Dunkirk pocket supplied by the Royal Navy with a 24/7 air CAP? The British could easily do any of these as they controlled the Channel. This would create one large difficult to combat force at Dunkirk. They also saw the resolve of outnumbered British forces at Arras. German generals were trying to figure out what was happening. None thought that British troops would retreat to England and stay there. The British never did that sort of thing. The Germans could divert most of their forces south and risk a Dunkirk breakout being attacked from their rear fighting on two fronts, or stay and consolidate, which they needed to do, awaiting a French/British attack from the south and use some forces and the Luftwaffe to attack Dunkirk, which they did. *German forces resumed their attack on Dunkirk for over 6 days and failed to seize the port. *The plan to break out of the Dunkirk Pocket using British, Belgian and French forces was abandoned as Gort had no confidence in the French. All military school studies since, knowing what the German and allied positions and situations were in 1940, have shown it would have succeeded. The Germans were defeated at the Battle of Dunkirk. They tried militarily to seize the port but failed. Only because the British did not trust the French and moved back to England did the Germans eventually occupy the town. The Germans did not let the British get away that is misguided myth, they tried for a week simply not able to seize Dunkirk.
    8
  2. "In Spain, the situation over the winter of 1940-41 approached famine conditions and the inability of Germany to guarantee sufficient grain supplies was a major factor in persuading Franco not to declare on the German side." -Prof Adam Tooze, Wages of Destruction.
    5
  3.  The Colonel  The Japanese gained a foothold on Singapore island through an Australian troop line, the Eighth Division. They abandoned their posts and went on a drunken binge in Singapore. Colin Smith in Singapore Burning writes about the Diggers. He highlights the disgraceful behaviour of the Australian Eighth Division and its commander, Major General Gordon Bennett. "The British did their best in Singapore. We actually sent in an entire division of territorials, citizen soldiers, the 18th Division, simply because we felt we couldn't let the Australians down. But it was the Australians who let us down," "The Australian Eighth Division was committed into battle very late in the Malayan campaign and started off very well. But it collapsed in Singapore, and left a gaping hole in Percival's defences which proved impossible to patch up and led to the precipitate fall of Singapore long before it should have taken place." "Thousands of Australian deserters – about 7000 – flocked into Singapore town itself from the north-west of the island they were supposed to be holding." "Some of them fought their way onto ships, some of them were shot by British soldiers as they tried to run away." Smith discovered that Australian Prime Minister John Curtin had sent a message to the British Commander-in-Chief, General Wavell, that he was not to execute any Australian soldiers for cowardice without Curtin's permission. The Australian Eighth Division were involved in drunkenness, womanising, rape, and desertion. Smith wrote that the Australian Sixth and Ninth Divisions had a good reputation in other theatres. Gordon Bennett was never again given a command after he escaped from the Japanese. The Australian conduct was so poor the files were only released about 10 years ago.
    4
  4.  @MilitaryHistoryNotVisualized  They usually are when what they believed as true for decades, was not. They use teh word Revisionist in a disparaging manner. When new information comes to light, of course events must be reassessed. The biggest example was when in 1976 when the British revealed the existence of Colossus and the code breaking was officially revealed, with papers available, etc. The acclaimed World at War series, made a few years earlier, would have been written a little differently in parts if they had known, probably having a whole episode on that.
    3
  5. And Lucas at Anzio.
    3
  6.  @DC9622  The Tiger tanks programme was accelerated after the Germans were out-tanked by the French Char B and British Matilda 2. Mid-war the British lost it, relegating the tank concentrating on anti-tank weapons, with tank production dropping. Something David Fletcher rightly makes a big thing about. The Churchill, a rushed design, ended up being a superb all round tank, filling a gap - it could go where no other tank could go. The mas produced and lacklustre US Sherman did fill the mid-war gap until the Comet & Centurion arrived. And not forgetting the APDS ammunition which made a 6-pounder gun a Tiger killer. APDS made the humble, later, heavily armoured Churchills rub shoulders with a Tiger, as it could knock one out from any angle. It was slow but could go where no Tiger would dare go. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p-izpDBZv4 Early war The British and French had the best tanks. Not forgetting the Soviet KV1, although not used until mid-war.. Mid war The Germans and Soviets had the best tanks. Tiger, Mk IV, T-34. Late war The British again took the lead, with the Soviets not far behind; with the Comet & Centurion and Soviet IS2. The Americans will say where is the Sherman. The Sherman went through many adaptations. The ultimate Sherman the E8, adapted to British suggestions, was only introduced post war. It was so far removed from the first Sherman it should have been given a new name. It even looked very different - all squared off. The only point notable about the Sherman was that it was made in vast numbers.
    3
  7. Patton did try to push, but the enemy always did regroup then stop him. A 1985 US Army paper on the Lorraine campaign castigated Patton from outrunning his logistics and that he never understood logistics.
    3
  8.  @lavrentivs9891  You need to read some history. About one third of the equipment at Dunkirk was successfully taken back to England. The BEF was only one third of the British Army. In about a month all units were fully re-equipped with factories turning out the latest armaments 24/7. The regular army had near two million with the Home Guard one million. Right after the retreat at Dunkirk, up until early 1941, the British had: • Destroyed the German surface fleet. • Neutralised most of the French fleet by sinking   or starving it of fuel. • Disabled a major part of the Italian fleet. • Freely moving around the Mediterranean. • Starving Germany of food and resources   with the effective Royal Navy blockade. • Beat the Luftwaffe over Dunkirk. • Beat the Luftwaffe in the misnomer the Battle   of Britain as Britain was never threatened. • Pushed the Italians out of East Africa. • Decimated the Italian army in North Africa. • Were about to take all the southern Mediterranean coast. • Germany was being bombed from the air with raids   of over 100 bombers - 150 over Nuremberg - using   the new navigational device, Gee. • A massive air bombing fleet was being assembled. • A matter of weeks after the US entered WW2 the RAF launched  a 1,000 bomber raid on Cologne. • The RAF shot down over 700 German fighters over Continental Europe in 1941. After the small BEF (only 9% of all allied forces in France) left France in June 1940, the British went on the rampage. So much so Franco told Hitler the British would win and he would not join in with Germany, fearing British occupation of Spanish territory.  The Turkish ambassador stated Britain will win as it has a pool of men in its empire to create an army of 45 million (later an army of 2.6 million moved into Burma). In 1941 the British: • Suppressed an uprising in Iraq; • Beat the Vichy French in Syria; • Secured Iran and the oil by invading. The British determined where the battlefields with the Axis were going to be.  After France 1940 Germany never had a significant campaign victory over the British Commonwealth ever again in WW2. The Germans FAILED: • To win the Battle of Britain in 1940; • To win the Battle of the Atlantic in 1940/41; • To control the eastern Atlantic ; • To control the Mediterranean in 1940/41; • To control North Africa and the Middle East in 1940/41.  The British Commonwealth stopped the Nazis/Axis achieving all this well before the USA joined WW2 or even sent lend lease. Even the expensive pyrrhic victory in Crete meant little in the end to the Nazis because the Royal Navy still dominated the eastern Mediterranean with Crete not leading to any campaign winning difference.
    3
  9.  @lavrentivs9891  The Japanese did not land on Singapore island unopposed. They went through the Australians.
    3
  10.  @lavrentivs9891  They faced an Australian division run by an idiot named Gordon Bennet, who allowed his troops to get drunk and run riot. British troops were ordered to shoot Australian soldiers who were trying to board ships and escape.
    3
  11.  @lavrentivs9891  Analysis based on facts. Very different.
    3
  12. Cheftain was playing the percentage game. The Sherman was poorly armoured giving poor crew protection, Cooper's prime point.
    3
  13. You need to rethink. And stop going by Hollywood.
    2
  14. You have watching too many Hollywood films. reading.
    2
  15.  @roberthansen5727  Iraq would supplement European output.
    2
  16. The Comet was 33 tons, while the Panther was 44 tons. Big difference. Not quite the same. The British got the German factory to make some new Panthers just after WW2 to see how it was made and assess the tank. Very little of the tank, if anything, was used in post war British designs, so they couldn't have been that impressed. The Comet continued to be made post war, serving in Korea, being exported to a number of countries. The Centurion, a WW2 tank (just), was made in volume after WW2 being probably, with the Soviet T-54-55s, the best post war tank for 35 years after the war. The Centurion is regarded as the first ever MBT.
    2
  17.  @DonMeaker  Not this one again! Operation Cobra was planned by Monty - part of the overall plan explained at St.Paul's school in London. All below is from Nigel Hamilton in _Monty, Master of the Battlefield 1942–1944: Brooke, however, was worried that he had not completely stopped the rot, and the next morning penned a long letter to Monty warning him of Eisenhower’s ‘mischief-making’: My dear Monty The trouble between you and the P.M. has been satisfactorily settled for the present, but the other trouble I spoke to you about is looming large still and wants watching very carefully. Ike lunched with P.M. again this week and as a result I was sent for by P.M. and told that Ike was worried at the outlook taken by the American Press that the British were not taking their share of the fighting and of the casualties. There seems to be more in it than that and Ike himself seemed to consider that the British Army could and should be more offensive. The P.M. asked me to meet Ike at dinner with him which I did last night, Bedell was there also. It is quite clear that Ike considers that Dempsey should be doing more than he does; it is equally clear that Ike has the very vaguest conception of war! I drew attention to what your basic strategy had been, i.e. to hold with your left and draw the Germans onto the flank while you pushed with your right. I explained how in my mind this conception was being carried out, that the bulk of the Armour had continuously been kept against the British. He could not refute these arguments, and then asked whether I did not consider that we were in a position to launch major offensives on each Army front simultaneously. I told him that in view of the fact that the German density in Normandy is 2 ½ times that on the Russian front, whilst our superiority in strength was only in the nature of some 25% as compared to 300% on the Russian superiority on the Eastern front, I did not consider that we were in a position to launch an all out offensive along the whole front. Such a procedure would definitely not fit in with our strategy of opening up Brest by swinging forward Western Flank.’ To Brooke, Monty’s strategy was so clear that he could not understand Eisenhower’s apparent obsession with side issues, such as accusations in the American press that the British were leaving all the fighting up to the Americans: ’The strategy of the Normandy landing is quite straight-forward. The British (on the left) must hold and draw Germans on to themselves off the western flank whilst Americans swing up to open Brest peninsular,’ Brooke noted in his diary. .
    2
  18.  @DonMeaker  Normandy had an end day of D-day plus 90. It came in ahead of schedule at D-day plus 80, with 22% less casualties than predicted. On D-day plus 90 British forces were taking Antwerp, 100 days ahead of the target date. Caen was a second tier objective. The prime objective in the first few days was to establish a bridgehead not take cities. Ports were important not cities. At the 11th hour Monty moved the US 82nd paras from Caen to Cherbourg. None of Monty's plans were abandoned, the plan was brilliant and worked. You have not a clue.
    2
  19.  @DonMeaker  Look at Monty's record, no one comes close. Use facts, instead of making things up. It is easier that way.
    2
  20.  @thunderbird1921  Yep, Patton was jealous that someone got newsreel headlines over him.
    2
  21. The reality was that the USA never had a good general at all. They were so poor they laud Patton as some genius, when the reality was that he was poor as well. In The Lorraine Patton failed to reach the Westwall suffering 52,000 casualties. His Third Army suffered more casualties than any other western allied army. If Mark Clark was German he would have been shot for what he did at Rome.
    2
  22. The British in Malaya were second rate troops, with the best troops sent to the desert, whereas the Japanese troops were experienced from fighting the Chinese. Also, the Japanese had around 200 tanks, while the British had none. The tanks were not good tanks, but when the opposition has none, it makes a massive difference. At the time of fighting the Japanese in Malaya the British were sending tanks to the USSR. Just one of those convoys of Matilda 2 tanks diverted to Malaya would have made all the difference giving a British victory for sure. The Matilda 2s would have scythed through any Japanese defences, as they had no anti-tank gun to knock it out - why the Australians later used the Matilda 2 against the Japanese. Small, well armoured, being suitable for jungle war. But the British should have won anyhow. The Japanese had run out of ammunition at Singapore and were ready to surrender when General Yamashita sat down at the table with Percival. To Yamashita's surprise, he realised the British officers were talking about surrendering, so started a bluff banging the table. It worked. One of the best bluffs in military history. Also, Percival was naïve and rightly disgraced after WW2.. Yamashita was moved to the Philippines. When he surrendered the Philippines, Percival was taken from a Japanese prison camp being present at the surrender, to the surprise and dismay of Yamashita.  Yamashita was hung after WW2 for war crimes. Percival lived being snubbed after WW2. Yamashita wrote: ‘My attack on Singapore was a bluff, a bluff that worked. I had 30,000 men and was outnumbered more then three to one. I knew if I had to fight long for Singapore I would be beaten. That is why the surrender had to be at once. I was very frightened all the time that the British would discover our numerical weakness and lack of supplies and force me into disastrous street fighting.’
    2
  23.  @elliskaranikolaou2550  The fact remains in that the Japanese still won by only a bluff, not military might - their military might had fizzled out at Singapore. If Percival insisted they fight on, not speaking to the Japanese, the British would have won. The British overall did not look at the Japanese as poor troops. They knew what they were doing in China and they were fully aware of their superb navy. The British were blind to Kalin Gol in 1939 when the Soviets beat the Japanese using armour. The British never had tanks in Malaya. That was the key mistake.
    2
  24. One of the reasons Franco refused to enter the war with Germany was he believed the British would win. German Admiral Canaris also told Franco this. At the time Franco met Hitler in late October 1940, he knew the British had wiped out a large part of the French fleet at Mers El Kabir, sunk large Italian battleships and were effectively near wiping out the Italians in the desert. The RN was the largest navy in the world with the German navy pretty well non-existent after Norway - the U-Boats came later. The RN were sailing openly in the Mediterranean and had aircraft carriers that could strike anywhere. The Luftwaffe were defeated over Dunkirk and England. Hitler planned to invade the UK and was prevented from doing so. Although they had conquered France with a large land army (the British were only 9% of the Allies), Germany were no super power and Franco knew that. Franco also knew the British were highly mobile able to deploy troops almost anywhere, unlike the German military. At the beginning of World War II, naval officer and ex Turkish prime minister Rauf Orbay was the Turkish ambassador in London, stating that the British can raise 45 million troops from its empire so certainly will win. One reason why Turkey kept out of the war. Franco feared all the Spanish islands and large parts of southern Spain and North Africa being occupied by the British (who were running the Italians out of North Africa at the time) with Spain turned into a battleground. Spain was also in no fit state to fight a war, militarily or economically. If the RN put a naval blockade on Spain the British could have starved Spain into submission. If the country was starving there may be a rising and a civil war all over again. With the Republicans supplied by the British. Franco wanted to join Hitler but had little, to nothing, to gain by joining him.
    2
  25. Nicholas, Stillwell was not a general of ground forces for sure. If his role was primarily political, he should never have been given ground control of armies. However, his detestable character did not even lend him to that role too well. The fact he spoke Mandarin was his only attribute.
    2
  26.  @michaeldunne338  A number of tanks were converted into APCs. They even took off Sherman turrets and its innards piling troops in.
    2
  27.  @AFT_05G  wrote: "USSR never outproduced USA during anytime of WW2." The USSR did - in 1942. Again... One point Prof Adam Tooze mentions, dismissing the myth that the USA provided all with everything, that in 1942 the USSR outproduced the USA. The USA provided about 11-12% of British supplies, mainly raw materials and machine tools (British War Production by Postan 1951). The USA supplied about 5$ of Soviet needs. The USA providing most of the materials for WW2 is greatly overstated.
    2
  28.  @lavrentivs9891  What if, what if. Facts are better. Percival tried to be proactive and move into Thailand to man the landing grounds, but was overridden. He wanted far more planes, but they never came. Percival was a buffoon not suitable for such a position. The troops in Singapore did not want to surrender as they knew what the Japanese were like. Percival was told to stick his ground by Churchill, but never. If he had the Japanese would have surrendered being out of ammunition.
    2
  29.  @lavrentivs9891  It is not based on facts, just a wild opinion.
    2
  30.  @benwilson6145  The Japanese were ready to surrender at Singapore. He was in charge of all ground forces. How could they ever get on the island in the first place with so many men at his disopsal !!!!
    2
  31.  @IceWolfLoki  Dunkirk was a strategic retreat. The BEFs retreat was made at strategic level.
    2
  32.  @lavrentivs9891  No reputed British historian takes Beevor or Hastings seriously.
    2
  33.  @lavrentivs9891  I could spend an eternity ripping Beevor apart, with facts. He is not worth the effort.
    2
  34.  @lavrentivs9891  You are a thick as pig shit.
    2
  35.  The Colonel  Amazing. If the Australian Eigth Division's action were so innocent, why was there a wrap on the whole thing until anyone involved pretty well dead? Their actions were disgusting. Amazing that the Australian government did not agree. Wow. Facts say something else.
    2
  36.  The Colonel  You are confused. The BEF withdrawing from the Continent was an order to a whole force from strategic level. The Australians leaving Singapore was cowardice. British soldiers were ordered to shoot them as they tried to board ships to get out. The Aussie Eighth Division was acted in cowardly fashion. The USA had guaranteed the security of Australia. Aussie troops fighting in the desert was neither here nor there. I fail to see where Australia was betrayed by anyone.
    2
  37.  @willsteele793  He ovestreched his supply line, so.not much of a great general. He was lucky his bluff worked. If the British saw through his bluff he would have been defeated. Great generals do not overstretch their supply lines. Look at the best, Monty, he never did such things.
    2
  38. Lloyd Fredendall
    2
  39. The British reduced U-Boat losses in 1941 to manageable levels - new ships were outnumbering losses with only 1 in 181 ships being lost to U-Boats in the North Atlantic convoys. With the USA entry into the war shipping losses were now catastrophic. In the first six months of 1942 600 vessels were sunk off the US eastern seaboard. The USA fighting Germany was in question because of a lack of shipping. This was because Admiral King of the US Navy would not take British advice. He would not lower US ships to escort civilian convoys, viewing they only fought military ships. The Americans would not even implement blackouts of coastal cities, giving a perfect backdrop for German U-Boats silhouetting ships against the illuminated cities behind. US Admiral King despised the British over an incident in WW1 when he disobeyed orders. He was carpeted by the British commander of a group of which his ship was a part. Even then he never liked taking orders. King was a buffoon, who should have been removed in 1942 at an early stage when it was first clear not running convoys was disastrous. The British were very concerned at the dramatic allied shipping losses. The staggering losses prompted the British insisting that the Americans take 24 anti-submarine trawlers and 10 corvettes, complete with experienced crews. An RAF coastal command anti-U-Boat squadron was posted to Rhode Island to protect the New York approaches. Eisenhower said the best way to win the war was to “kill Admiral King”. The British naturally viewed the Americans as "our Italians". If such a British commander was so inept he would have been removed permanently quite quickly. Bafflingly, the US never removed their top men no matter how poor they were - Eisenhower should have been removed as ground forces commander over the Bulge debacle; Clark for disobeying orders at Rome allowing the German Army to escape. King and other Americans were of the view they would not support the British in WW2 theatres if it meant liberating territory of the British Empire, putting the British back in charge. This was none of their concern as the focus was to defeat the Germans and Japanese. High ranking British generals did not insist the USA return territory stolen from Native Americans and Mexicans.
    2
  40. At that point in the war the Philippines were strategically unimportant to Formosa. Formosa was regarded as more important. British battleships would bombard the place. The British Pacific Fleet spent a lot of time around Formosa and Okinawa.
    1
  41.  @TheKnowledgeMan101  MacArthur was about the only one who wanted to go into the Philippines. Most wanted to bypass the place using all resources going straight for Japan, ending the war ASAP.
    1
  42. The British and Canadians invented the armoured personnel carrier in WW2. This kept infantry losses down substantially improving fighting efficiency. The British could deliver a big blow with fewer men. Over the world the British had a vast army. 2.5 million in the British Indian Army alone.  Mobilization: Across SIX years of war, Britain and its Empire mobilized nine million people into land forces.  This figure excludes auxiliary, naval and air force personnel. Land Forces 1939-45 Australia  751,729 Britain 3,510,309 B. Indian Ocean 6,500 Canada   730,625 Cyprus   30,000  East Africa  200,000 Fiji           3,050 British Guiana 42 Hong Kong  2,200 India   2,455,779  Kenya   98,240 Malaysia  1,500 Nepal   250,280 Newfoundland 4,005 New Zealand  128,905 Nigeria   121,652 Sudan   20,000 South Africa  334,000 Southern Africa 77,767 West Africa  200,000 West Indies  10,000
    1
  43.  @TheChieftainsHatch  The Kangaroo initially based on the Churchill. Shermans had their turrets removed to just pile men inside. The allies were not short of tanks. The tanks were not as good as German tanks in many cases, but they had lots of them. Montgomery cared for his men under his command, British, Canadian, American, Poles, etc. Casualties were always lighter than American and German armies. Some US casualties were horrendous in WW2: 52,000 in Lorraine, 34,000 at Hurtgen Forest, 1000,000 at the Bulge alone. In the Scheldt, the Canadian casualties were far less than anticipated using Kangaroos. They were first used in Normandy. A Kanagroo was based on a Grant chassis. The Grant was outdated by the time Normandy came along, so those chassis' were rife for conversion. The chassis' were also used for mounting artillery guns on. The best Kangaroo was the converted Churchill. They had side doors and I believe the top was covered on some of them. The Churchill could climb to places no other tank could, like up steep hills and small mountains. The Merritt Brown gearbox assured all that. It could also turn on its axis, so ideal as an armoured personnel carrier. WW1 ended, for the armoured personnel carrier to be used, although invented for the 1919 plan. What amazes me is that the idea was not used for the outbreak of WW2. https://youtu.be/-DjcNZWVa0w
    1
  44.  @Jamie-kg8ig  A Dr Strangelove general.
    1
  45. Geoff Halsey Circling the Med was no side show.
    1
  46.  @monkeydank7842  The British were in the way.
    1
  47. The key to all this is Vichy France. More importantly, the Caudillo's slowly dawning cognizance of the strength of British resistance would gradually reactivate his deep-seated fears of a retaliatory strike against Spain or her overseas territories. - Preston Nevertheless, had Hitler been sufficiently determined to secure Spanish belligerence, he might well have pulled Franco into the war on his side. It would have required massive deliveries of food and military equipment and extravagant promises of imperial spoils at the expense of France. As things were to turn out, the Fiihrer would be inhibited from making the necessary promises to Franco for fear of the French finding out. Overwhelming evidence that Spain would be an economic and military liability convinced Hitler that it was simply not worth the risk of alienating Vichy to gain Spanish belligerence. -Preston German policy was to have Vichy France on her side. That means French overseas territories not joining in with the British. The Winston Churchill ‘Some chicken! Some neck!’ speech. “Some chicken, some neck” was a reference to the sneering comment by French Marshal Philippe Pétain, future leader of the collaborationist Vichy French government who was convinced that Germany would successfully invade Britain as it had done France. He told Churchill that in three weeks Britain would “have its neck wrung like a chicken.” From the speech: The French Government had at their own suggestion solemnly bound themselves with us not to make a separate peace. It was their duty and it was also their interest to go to North Africa, where they would have been at the head of the French Empire. In Africa, with our aid, they would have had overwhelming sea power. They would have had the recognition of the United States, and the use of all the gold they had lodged beyond the seas. If they had done this Italy might have been driven out of the war before the end of 1940, and France would have held her place as a nation in the counsels of the Allies and at the conference table of the victors. But their generals misled them. When I warned them that Britain would fight on alone whatever they did, their generals told their Prime Minister and his divided Cabinet, “In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken.” Some chicken; some neck. -Winston Churchill, Ottawa, Dec. 30, 1941 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y6JxSHmVB5g The Germans kept Vichy in their camp. If they had not Italy would have been out of North Africa and the large North Africa campaign would not have happened with British forces deployed elsewhere. The Med would have been a British/French lake. The combined French and British fleets would have been indispensable in launching seaborne attacks just about anywhere they wanted. Hitler promised Vichy coal, as their source from the UK was cut off, and oil and other food and raw materials. Also work in producing goods for Germany which they would pay for. Keeping Vichy on his side was vital to Hitler. It was either: 1. Getting Spain into the war and Germany then having to supply Spain and support her if attacked, which takes huge resources, and give Franco French territory in Africa, potentially turning French overseas territories to Britain's side 2. Keep Vichy on Germany's side, which would take resources but far, far greater benefits. Spain was best left inert with Germany focusing on pacifying Vichy France making them inert, so they do not move over to align with Britain, which may have meant removing Italy from the war, or at least from Africa. Germany could not supply both countries. Franco's terms were unacceptable to Hitler. So, whether Franco thought Hitler would win or not, was quite irrelevant. If Franco was not to gain any territory, then why should he join in the war? If he joined the war and the allies won, there was the fear that he would most probably be removed.
    1
  48. Saeronor Look up Churchill and the soft underbelly of Europe.
    1
  49.  @phoenixjz4782  Britain controlled the entrance to the Atlantic from the Med and also the eastern Med. At times the Royal Nay were freely sailing anywhere. The Italians mainly control around Italy. Britain had Malta right off Italy all through WW2 and managed to supply the island. Britain surrounded Germany imposing a blockade. They had the land from Turkey to Libya, much of the Med and the eastern Atlantic. Germany was being starved of resources. The U-Boat campaign was partially to distract the Royal Navy, to allow merchant blockade runners into Nazi Germany. They were short of everything. All of the Italian fleet at no time could put to sea as one because of a lack of oil, the British blockade was so effective.
    1
  50. It is very simple - unconditional surrender. Roosevelt was insisting on this, Churchill was not. Hitler was hoping for peace talks. The German Ardennes offensive (Battle of the Bulge) was a last ditch attempt to split the western allied armies in two hoping it would bring them to the peace table. In late 1944 after the Americans reached Lorraine, the British on the Belgium-Holland border, the Soviet Operation Bagration and German cities being systematically obliterated, if the Allies approach Hitler for talks he would have talked and the war stopped. The allies seeing what happened with the Germans did hold Japan to unconditional surrender. They surrendered before massed allied armies were on their soil (well some Soviets were)
    1