One thing a lot of people forget is that like 1/3 of the US forces that invaded italy were italian american (im italian and my ancestors came to america in the 20s) yet many italian and german americans faced internment and prejudice even though many of them gladly fought for america against germany and italy(eisenhower was full blooded german), it was almost exactly like what happened with japanese americans,
The USA supplied all allied army,s long before we entered the war . It was called lend lease ,and if not for that ,the brits would have crumbled , never for get that !
My grandad a British soilder, fought the Germans in Africa, long before the americans were fighting. Once the allies had gotten into italy, his group from Yorkshire Regiment got pinned down in a vine yard. he survieved but he could never drink wine, and everytime he smelt swine he got flashbacks
@xxxbdboydstyxxx Of course it wasn.t Hitler planned to conquer Moscow by December, before the winter set it. Yes, i know. But the way you say it its as if Soviet tanks/weapons/artillery and planes DIDN'T freeze either. As if the snow and mud DIDN'T hinder their movement too. You make it sound like it isn't Germany's fault that they didn't prepare for the winter by producing more winter uniforms and high calorie food stuffs. It was entirely their fault the didn't fully prepare.
U guys need to stop fighting who defeated the Germans! lol
The Germans were defeated by one enemy,and that my friends is the WINTER!
Frozen Guns, Frozen Gas tanks, Frozen Soldiers, add to it the bad Moves thet Hitler made in Russia, they had the chance to finish Russia when they were 40 miles away from Moscow, instead Hitler told it 6th division Army to hold the attack and go South, lol little he knew when the 6th Army came to Moscow again 1 week later, The winter stroke them the next day
@xxxbdboydstyxxx Yeah because the Soviets are immune to the cold. Good job, retard. They were repelled because their supply lines were far too overstretched and over 1.5 million veteran troops from Siberia that were stationed in northern Manchuria to protect against a Japanese invasion were sent to Moscow and under Zhukov, spearheaded around the German panzer armies, surrounded them and crushed them. This happened again during Stalingrad, Rostov, Leningrad, Kursk and the Crimea. They won alone.
Germany never planned to stay Have a long fight in Russia, so their Supplys went down and the Winter arrived, combine those 2 and u got yaself a perfect storm.
@xxxbdboydstyxxx Have you actually looked the number of tanks sent compared to Soviet tank/artillery/plane production? Probably not because you're an ignorant and obnoxious fool. Why do you think historians can agree that between 80-93% of all Wermacht soldiers died on the Eastern Front? Go learn some history from unbiased sources and discern the truth for yourself. Ignorance might be bliss to you but it only highlights your stupidity and lack of knowledge on the matter to others.
Nazi-occupied Italy? Weren't Italy and Mussolini allies with the Germans and the Nazis were there to help them out? Or don't I remember my history straight? :/
They wanted to be the ones to payback Germany for their attrocities and made a deal with Western allies to take Berlin alone which is why Berlin was divided between the three major allies which eventually resulted eventually in the Berlin airlift and then the Berlin wall. Learn history.
@13times iam on the loosin side? didnt know iam that old. funny u lost some wars too and ur country didnt even have a reason to start em. compared to ur history mine looks pretty good.
Louisiana was a bullshit !!! Germans alertet US not to go in that place beacause there is german submarines...by they ignored and sent louisiana with intention to enter the war, nobody wants a shit form US..and now they vote a black president, is the most stupid and fat people on earth and they invent wars in middle east for resources...
I was hoping it would show the bombing of Brindisi where my Grandfather's regiment was destroyed during the much smaller part of the invasion on the east coast and the subsequent bombing of Foggia. I can't find much info about it.
I didn't say USSR was the only country,they definitely played the biggest role in defeating Germany. Who was first to Berlin,who lost the most people,USSR. The allies were trying to keep up with them so they didn't occupy all of Germany.
@Ramadl59 USSR was first to Berlin because they asked the allies to let them be the ones to take Berlin for payback for German attrocites. The other allies went along with it.
@tryithere HAHAHA that's funny! The allies were always playing catch up,to the USSR. They were desperate to get to Berlin,before the soviets took it all. It's good propaganda though ;)
@Ramadl59 Catching up? Russia fought WWII only between Moscow and Stalingrad to Berlin while the western allies like England and The USA along with lesser countries like Australia fought for the rest of the world. Stalin was begging the western allies to invade north west Italy to open a second front but they weren't ready for it and then decided to invade at Normandy. While Russia lost the most men, a large part of that was the Russian winter.
@Ramadl59 USSR defeated germany with the help from the west. And USA had nly 2 atomic weapons, its wasnt that easy to build one. An attack on germany could have been very risky because germans would realise how the a bombs work.
Nazi occupied Italy, I hate this bullshit. First of the Germans had a lot of allies during ww2. Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and other smaller states
Just like the British fought along with the americans so did these people fought with the Germans. The Germans fought in North Africa and Italy because the Italians asked them to, the Germans wanted to fight in Russia not in the mediterranean
Compared with British Air planes and German ones like spit fire and Messar schmitt,Amercan airplanes seem to be bad in the view point of their mobility.
during the latter part of the war it was really pilot quality that counted. The germans lost an awful lot of experienced pilots that couldnt be replaced as fast as the allies could replace theirs. The aircraft themselves were roughly equivilent to each other (i.e. fw190/spitfire V and IX). Factor into that the fact that german factories were under constant bombardment (slower to replace losses). Its more these factors than the actual aircraft themselves.
@GSHelga I wouldn't say that..... although the spitfire was maybe the most famous.
Check out the P-51 Mustang ( my favorite ) - arguably the best fighter late in the war, the P-47 Thunderbolt - impressive though not as nimble, and the F-4U Corsair - the best carrier fighter of the war, just as some examples :)
RALPHLAURINO ,,,Goat's milk is a very good source of calcium and the amino acid tryptophan. It is also a good source of protein, phosphorus, riboflavin (vitamin B2) and potassium. Perhaps the greatest benefit of goat's milk, however, is that some people who cannot tolerate cow's milk are able to drink goat's milk without any problems...so maybe you want to mention this to Mr Krishna and see if he wouldn't mind taking Goats off of the unimportant list.Well it would be immoral to leave them on eh?
The planes in 2:46 are "The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt ". P-51 Mustangs has pointed frontal propeller. The air in-take is below the propeller and the exhaust cylinders are on the sides of the body near the front/nose
no from 2:44 to 2:50 it's a P-51 with a bomb load and what looks like twin 3 barrelled miniguns. You're right though because the planes just beforehand are P-38s
@smeghead666 - no they are 3x rocket projectiles (on each wing) on p47 thunderbolts. P47s & P51s were capable of ground attack when not needed as fighters.
ask yourself this - could the UK have won the war by itself - no way! Could the uk and the USSR have won it? Possibly/possibly not. If the US hadn't come into the war? - Well then i think we may have had a stand-off situation like in the film Fatherland, with the US as one superpower and the Nazis as the other.
you are forgetting all the other small countrys that faught along side the allies they ould of helped and i think that the whole european country together would of held of the nazis quitwell without american help
nope - the french army was antiquated and got bulldozed for a start. No army was equipped to take on the blitzkrieg at the time it happened. Remember that there were a lot of "small" countries that fought alongside germany also. We only really just got the job done as it was - with mistakes from hitler along the way (and ULTRA intelligence). Looking at it, we should never have invaded Italy directly for the reasons given below - i.e. a long and protracted campeign.
@ooeyb Guys, it is absurd to think the UK could have won the war going it alone. At least, without losing the English isles to Nazi invasion. read the memoirs of those leaders. Churchill in 1940 was considering moving the Royals to Canada and the fleet with them, but to continue fighting the bastards.
No mike, its quite a few (not, I stress, all by any means) americians that actually come across as ignorant of that fact. Ask most non-americian allies and they will say the same thing. Ok, maybe a a large, isolationist minority then. I'm certainly not anti-us by any stretch of the imagination. Its just that when us brits see hollywood films such as u96/Pearl Harbour etc... "bending the truth" we tend to get a little vexed about it. Patriot 911 above seems to understand what i'm saying.
italy was a tough battleground because of the mountainous terrain and lack of manouverability - this favours the defenders, and they knew it. Kesselring used it to max advantage.
well, the US always give the impression that they won wwii by themselves and that the UK, USSR etc... played only a minor role. As a country i guess poland suffered more than any because of wwii (and its aftermath).
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I would have to say that Poland got what it deserved. What isn't told is that Polish troops made hundreds of raids aganst German civilians by crossing the border, sometimes multiple times a night. That's said to be fabricated but it wasn't. Hitler finally protected German families by sending in German troops.
I haven't heard more bullshit in my life, fellar. The casus beli was prepared by the nazis wearing Polish uniforms. Like the assault they made on a radio sttn in Gleiwitz. Left some prisoners corpses dressed in the uniforms. Plus they had the demands, say ex-teritorial railway and a motorway. It would chop Poland off the coast. Western countries weren't bothered by nazi's agressive policy; that led to war, u ignorant.
True. Although u were quiet for the next 20years after being battered in Vietnam, which is widely called Vietnam syndrome. As it was hard to believe, that a super state got defeated by a bunch of communist peasants + that was their first lost war in the history.
yah I used to work with a bunch of vietnamese people who were veterans from the other team here in california a few years ago and they are tough the vietnamese people work hard stick together are united and hardl;y rest at all they are very seriously disciplined people.
There you go. You can't win with such an enemy, especially if you are the invader. BTW there's large vietnamese minority in Poland and I only can support your point: proud, stubborn and hardworking nation they are. No wonder u lost that war.
@KsiazeIgor the US lost the vietnam war due to lack of support from their own liberalist publics lack of will to see things to the end (just like they may do in Afganistan). They wern't defeated militarily, and certainly had the airwar won.
@ooeyb Well, the opinions may vary. I'm not sure how the Nam War is being taught in the States, although military speaking the US really lost this conflict. No political bonuses whatsoever, no ground offensives won as well, the number of engaged GI permanently growing altogether with the losses, therefore the US Gov't intended for vietnamization of war. There's no books or historians out there reckoning America won this war. BTW - that's off top :/
Nam was not a war that needed to be fought to the end (unlike WWII). Militarily, the US were actually WINNING the vietnam war, even with one hand tied behind their backs. However, there is also another way to loose a war, and that is politically.
North vietnamese/Vietcong losses were enormous in comparison with US losses (look at things like the tet offensive) and it is psycologically disconcerting when the enemy seem to have unlimited manpower.
@ooeyb The US had a major military supremacy over the Vietcong, they couldn't take advantage of it though. Pesticides and napalm bombs against the guerrillas and tunnels? Erm, no. By the way, if they had a chance to kick Vietnamese arse, they would. Too many countries were engaged, there was no chance for the Western states to win it. Neither French nor the Americans could win, end of.
@KsiazeIgor certain aspects of it they were winning. I didn't say it was a winnable war, but it certainly wasn't a military defeat. Korea can be classed as a draw because both sides got what they wanted. Anyway, all this is interesting but off topic like you say, so I'll stop now ;-)
@KsiazeIgor The Viet Cong were eliminated as an effective military force in 1968 and the war should have ended in 1969. It was the NVA and eroding American confidence who were the lethal threat snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory. Ho himself admits this. Staring directly into the eyes of a costly American victory, Walter Cronkite ("the most trusted man in America") tells his viewers the opposite, that the war was unwinable. This insidious remark turned the tide of American support.
The United States played a large part in the war thats indisputiable since we made countless rounds of ammo tens of thousands of planes (some like the P-39 and P-63 were almost sent exculsivly to the Russians who loved thembecuase of their heavy firepower) but to think we take all the credit is ridiculous. the P-51 was created at the request of the RAF and it was the RAF that first put the Rolls Royce Merlin engine to create the great fighter that it became.
@ooeyb No, the American movie industry does not make many movies about the Polish contribution to the war effort. i guess you expect them to ? Poland got rolled early in the war and you are upset that your effort in Italy isnt properly celebrated ?
@stybarrow - I didnt say anything about 'expecting' the us movie industry to acknowledge the Polish contribution to the war effort! Im British, not Polish!! I'm talking about films like U571 etc. I don't think its the veterans etc. that think like this - mainly most young Americans who can't be bothered to learn their History and the US film industry.
@ooeyb calm down, hot rod. i cited Polish events and contributions in the war because KSIAZELGOR (see below) was bemoaning there being no mention of Monte Cassino combat. as for "U571", i completely agree with you. But perhaps you European historians should direct a bit of angst towards the Russian allies, as i dont think they put much publicity out on your respective nations war efforts either.
@stybarrow I suppose you are quite right there. The UK only just finished paying its war debt to the us a few years ago. Despite us and the yanks sending them a lot of equipment to replace their losses (hurricanes/spitfires/air cobras/matildas/shermans etc.) Russia barely seems to acknowledge its war allies. I wonder if they actually paid for the equipment we sent them during the war?
@stybarrow U571? Don't get me started on the film Pearl Harbour, where Ben Afleck & co. 'win' the Battle of Britian for us, and go on to 'slaughter' Jap planes in the Harbour ;-). I think US veterens must be just as miffed as anyone else about the US film industries portrayal of these events too...
@ooeyb yes, that Hollywood would actually commit such raw revisionism of war history is disturbing. And its not even necessary. i mean, the Brit actor can play an American or the American can play a Brit. but you dont have to butcher key pieces of history. and you are also right concerning opinions of the US vets, they prefer that the true story be told. there was more than plenty valor and courage amongst the Allied ranks (including Poland, KSIAZELGOR).
Of course the us are going to make loads of films about their part in the war, like we did just after it, but at least ours are factual (dam busters, battle of Britain etc).
The danger with films like u571 is ignorance. The surviving Royal Navy guys that actually captured the 1st kriegsmarine enigma machine were hopping mad when that film came out, because it was nothing to do with the US, who did admittedly capture an enigma machine much later in the war under similar circumstances.
@ooeyb Do NOT.. forget that without the Allied effort.. (not just Russia) Securing North Africa and bombing the Ruhr and all of Germany with the airpower and Naval power the Soviets would not have been so successful.
Furthermore.. DO NOT FORGET how Russia quit on us in World War 1 and left us to fight the rest of that entire war. Russia was the meat grinder in WW2 for a damn good reason.
Also very true. The USSR, as we all know, was on the axis side at the beginning of the war.
IMHO, and I think most peoples, the big turning point was the battle of britain. If he'd removed the UK from the war then it's certain it would have gone on much longer at least. Hitler made so many mistakes during the BOB.
@lander4545 the key phrase being "may not" here. IMO, like I said before, without the US entering the war and providing war equipment whilst remaining out of it, I think it would have ended in stalemate, with all except the Americian continent being under the control of the axis powers. Perhaps a nuclear conflict would have ensued afterwards at some time to end the stalemate...
@lander4545 who knows ur makin urself bigger than u are.. germans had machine guns while americans startedthe war with 5 shot guns lol.... there were more candians and blacks which were forced to fight than americans.. actually the americans did nothin except sellin weapons and shit to the british and other countries for a way to high prize... and after they squished out all money they decided to join the war.. poor fuckin american trashcans
@ooeyb how very true is that! And Poland has been destroyed completely by the front lines crossing its territory all over the place, which only makes it's war effort even bigger.
@ooeyb Americans lost only 416,000 men in WW 2. How is it possible to win such a war with that numbers. Hitler send over 3 million men to take Russia, and in the Battle of Stalingrad alone over 1 million Germans and her allies and 1.8 million Russian solders were killed. US can suck my dick!!!
apart from insulting the US, i'm not sure what u r getting at. As someone already said here, the main contribution to the us war effort was the supply of fighting materials to the allies. Without it britian and probably the ussr too would have been knocked out of the war (remember, the us supplied a substantial amount of equipment to the ussr - as did the uk, at a critical time fairly early in the war.
@ooeyb USA supported other nations with ressources, weapons etc. but they did it because as 1. They feared germany and its military power and 2. Lend lease was a perfect investment for the us. As germans attacked SU USA didnt want support it. They wanted that Germans and soviets kill each other, there is even a book about it. But they realised that SU would not stand a chance against german forces and germany would become the worlds superpower.SU paid with blood, USA with money..
@Ixtzalit well, as with everything in life, this may partly be true - at least with the us dealing with the ussr. However, there were and still are strong cultural links between english speaking parts of the world - the us had absolutely no reason to fear the british (despite its navy bing the biggest in the world at that time). Stalin, of course, was just as much a tyrant as hitler. As for lend-lease to the ussr, i dont think they ever paid for the equipment they got - at least not in money.
@Ixtzalit/@alex - you are also forgetting that the us suffered greatly in the pacific vs the japs, and were really the only nation in a position to fight there. Half a million lost doesnt sound like being a lot, but then us civilians were never involved directly in the war. It's enough, and roughly what the UK suffered too.
@ooeyb Yes, us fought against japs, but japs fought against inbited nations in asia which was much biggger then the american army. UdSSR paid for lend leade materials and ressources but they didnt paid all. I think they stopped to pay in 1970 but i am not exactly sure about this date.
@AlexanderDiArmani the numbers of defeated soldiers do not mean they are inferior. An army can fight with or without air -, naval- or artillery support. Sovies, amerians and brits got massive support, while germans had only limited support. Artillery and airplanes kill soldiers too :). And yes, USA hadnt that many diviions in WWII. Without SU and britain USA wouldnt not be able to defeat germany.
@Ixtzalit remember that the germans were very close to defeating the ussr early in the war. The germans were on the outskirts of moscow! I guess luck/the weather and stupid errors by hitler and his cronies played a big part in the axis loosing the war too!
@ooeyb ofc, but it wasnt that essential. Germans couldnt use all their industry and divisions against SU. They had many divisions in france and italy, north and a couple of divisions in africa. Thx to lend lease soviets massive support that helped them to repel germans. The reserve armies were equipped thx to USA. They got even clothes and ammo from them. This is just the beginning...Without allied help soviets wouldnt defeat germans.
"You Brits have a tendency to be delusional about history"
As do many of your countrymen about how you were on the right side in the war (remember the USSR were allied with Germany first). First, if you had bothered to look at the many, many (copyright: commandant Lissare from Police Academy) comments I have posted here before you posted, nowhere have I indicated I was under any such delusion.
@ooeyb You wrote a lot. Most of what you said I agree with. But nothing you said was relevant to my post. My point was that Brits like to play revisionist historians and delude themselves into thinking that a victory against Nazi Germany was possible without the USA. This is just British national pride overtaking reality.
Like who exactly? I know of no one in the UK that holds the view that we could have won WWII by ourselves! This is a very interesting comment from someone who doesnt actually live here! I have to say that this view you hold is most certainly not a common view. Anyone thinking this would be delusional - even with the Commonwealth forces at our disposal. Is that relevent enough to your post?!
@ooeyb You are telling me you've never seen delusional comments on a world war two video made by Brits claiming that the USA wasn't necessary for victory? It's on every damned video.
@Dominick629 no - I don't ever recall any such remark from anyone important (you say it occurs everywhere), and if I'd had, I think the person/s that said it would be rebuffed by any sensible military historian. Please direct me towards an example - if you can. The US was important to the Allied war effort in so many ways. I await your direction with interest...
@Dominick629 - so I'm still waiting for you to follow up on your claim... If such material exists and it exists everywhere, then why can' tyou direct me to it? Guess you just want to see if you can wind me up eh?! The bottom line is WWII pretty much affected every country, so we ALL did our bit - the end ;-)
@Dominick629 - Rather, if you bother to read any of them you will actually discover that I believe it would have been touch and go with a UK/US OR UK/USSR pact. So therefore I am actually AGREEING with you!
We won the most important battle in Europe - the battle of Britain. Without a victory for the allies there, Germany would have only had to fight on one major front, its factories wouldn't have been under constant heavy aerial bombardment from the RAF/USAAF for most of the war...
@ooeyb Not true. Hitler declared war on the United States after the US declared war on Japan. The Battle of Britain was an important victory, but with or without victory, Germany would have been fighting two fronts. Germany on the British Isles would have been an intolerable threat to the U.S.. We simply would have been forced to liberate Britain first before liberating France. Britain deserves respect for her resistance, but she didn't win the war in 1940, a second front would have been opened.
@SavethePlace Would it? Perhaps. Put it would have been extremely difficult for the US to fight in the Pacific AND the Atlantic. The Germans would have set up early warning posts and would have seen the US coming from a mile off, built more and better u-boats.... it would have been absolutely horrendous for US forces, who would have lost 100s of 1000s of men. Also, don't forget, the Jerrys may then have well been able to develop the Atom bomb before the US.
The UK was absolutely vital for stopping them from developing the bomb. The USSR put all their efforts into defeating the germans on the ground. Clandestine ops were left under the control of the brits (who then trained/supplied the french resistance etc.).
@Dominick629 ... and thus the Germans, who made it to the outskirts of Moscow even with a potential second front to defend (not forgetting N Africa) would have very probably knocked the USSR out of the war. It's worth mentioning (as I have said in one of my comments) that the US (and UK) supplied critical war material to the USSR - who were in dire need of it at the time. And good equipment too (when they were also needed by the suppliers) - Spitfires/P40s/P39s/Shermans/Matilda tanks...
@Dominick629 also dont forget that in the first few months of the war, soviet equipment and men were decimated by the germans thanks to stalins purges and indecision...
Yeah, not even a bloody word said about the Poles storming the Monte Cassino monastery, where the German paras stopped the entire allied army on their way to Rome. Everyone tried to take it over, only the Poles succeeded. God bless our soldiers who died in that ruthless battle.
My grandfather was a Polish-American who fought in Italy. He was at Salerno, Cassino, and the ill-fated Rapido River crossing. Both allied victories and defeats in Italy were not the results of individual nations or soldiers, but a combined effort of them all. Everyone deserves their respects.
I don't think anyone's arguing that the Soviets made the greatest sacrifice in the war as whole, but great individual sacrifices were made everywhere.
@V4zCeNt : Hey bud, you're right. This war was a tragedy for every nation which took a part in it. Some nation though paid the greater contribution ( i.e. Poland or the Soviet Union) than the others did and the role of another countries is still being neglected, I am afraid. The western countries' war chronicles are often showing their effort as the largest, not even mentioning their less powerful allies. That's what the propaganda is like. If I comment anything I try to enlighten people .
@V4zCeNt I've been living in the UK for over 3 years and they know fuck all about the effort the Poles did to protect their island and the Europe. In the US they know even lesser than that, unfortunately. No offence then, mate, I'm only trying to inform :).
@KsiazeIgor well fuck off back to poland then you fucking rat ,we British dont want you here . we fucking hate you ,you fucking subhuman mongo race . get the fuck out of Britain ,British jobs for British workers . go home pole.
@KsiazeIgor hey - not fair! I know plenty about how the poles carried the fight on after their country was occupied. And I also acknowledge how badly the poles were treated here too, unfortunately. I believe the highest scoring RAF squadron (303?) in the battle of britain was polish-manned - flying Spitfires.
@ooeyb spot on there, fellar, good on you. I really should NOT generalize, who am I to judge? :) But the thing is I'm a historian by the trade and I met loads of people saying false facts about the WWII, whether it was in the UK or in other countries. The idea is to expose "our" effort and hide the losses, this is propaganda, that's the way it works everywhere, PL included. Poles fought bravely on every front, I owe them to tell the people all over the world their death is not forgotten.
One thing a lot of people forget is that like 1/3 of the US forces that invaded italy were italian american (im italian and my ancestors came to america in the 20s) yet many italian and german americans faced internment and prejudice even though many of them gladly fought for america against germany and italy(eisenhower was full blooded german), it was almost exactly like what happened with japanese americans,
therailwizard1994 2 months ago
The USA supplied all allied army,s long before we entered the war . It was called lend lease ,and if not for that ,the brits would have crumbled , never for get that !
dunkin359 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
'Tuesday Morning in September'. Available on DVD. Runtime 130 minutes.
Pure, unfiltered, authentic, and being released in such a way to keep its integrity.
Project is not affiliated and or connected to, working for any organization,
putting forth propaganda and or slant perspectives of the events on 9/11.
It is the most complete chronicle in real time of the wtc attacks.
tusdaymorninginsept 4 months ago
My grandad a British soilder, fought the Germans in Africa, long before the americans were fighting. Once the allies had gotten into italy, his group from Yorkshire Regiment got pinned down in a vine yard. he survieved but he could never drink wine, and everytime he smelt swine he got flashbacks
ccclllsport 4 months ago
Excellent film ... Thanks
chefrazorboy 10 months ago
Excellent film ... Thanks
chefrazorboy 10 months ago
Great footage. Thanks
specialks1953 10 months ago
Crispy Critter at 3:58...
BarryPuppetSoetoro61 10 months ago
B-25 is one of my favorite plane and bomber
1makermovie 1 year ago
at 2:29 he mentions the US. Air Force, but that wasn't established till 1947!
TeamBlackster 1 year ago
@TeamBlackster lol it was actually established under the US army, and it wasnt till 1947 till it became its own armed force :P
salakast 10 months ago
@TeamBlackster it was the Army Air Corps, the air force traces it history back through the Air Corps. They split into Army/Air Force in 47.
dominic150 5 months ago
@dominic150 yes I know. it wasn't called the "US Air Force" until then.
TeamBlackster 5 months ago
@TeamBlackster oh, ok. didnt know if you knew that, but you obviously do.
dominic150 5 months ago
The charred corpse of the pilot was aweful in color.
notaire2 1 year ago
Guns were frozen, Their Army wasn't designed to fight in Winter,
While the Russian were, Look it up on you tube u dumbass, Type Germany Winter russia,
It will explain it to you.
xxxbdboydstyxxx 1 year ago
@xxxbdboydstyxxx Of course it wasn.t Hitler planned to conquer Moscow by December, before the winter set it. Yes, i know. But the way you say it its as if Soviet tanks/weapons/artillery and planes DIDN'T freeze either. As if the snow and mud DIDN'T hinder their movement too. You make it sound like it isn't Germany's fault that they didn't prepare for the winter by producing more winter uniforms and high calorie food stuffs. It was entirely their fault the didn't fully prepare.
isamarine 1 year ago
happy new year :|
Lordsomejs 1 year ago
U guys need to stop fighting who defeated the Germans! lol
The Germans were defeated by one enemy,and that my friends is the WINTER!
Frozen Guns, Frozen Gas tanks, Frozen Soldiers, add to it the bad Moves thet Hitler made in Russia, they had the chance to finish Russia when they were 40 miles away from Moscow, instead Hitler told it 6th division Army to hold the attack and go South, lol little he knew when the 6th Army came to Moscow again 1 week later, The winter stroke them the next day
xxxbdboydstyxxx 1 year ago
@xxxbdboydstyxxx Yeah because the Soviets are immune to the cold. Good job, retard. They were repelled because their supply lines were far too overstretched and over 1.5 million veteran troops from Siberia that were stationed in northern Manchuria to protect against a Japanese invasion were sent to Moscow and under Zhukov, spearheaded around the German panzer armies, surrounded them and crushed them. This happened again during Stalingrad, Rostov, Leningrad, Kursk and the Crimea. They won alone.
isamarine 1 year ago
@isamarine
WOW how old r u?
do u even know Germany attacked Russia b4 the Winter arrived?
Did u know that Germany planned to conquer Russia in less than 3 weeks?
Hitler, wanned to Crush Russia fast, just the way they did with the other Nations that lost Vs Germany,
German Army was designed to Attack fast and rush,
When they attacked Russia, the Winter was out, so the German Army had no Winter clothing or Supply's for Winter.
Germans soldier froze to death, The food was Frozen,
xxxbdboydstyxxx 1 year ago
@xxxbdboydstyxxx
Germany never planned to stay Have a long fight in Russia, so their Supplys went down and the Winter arrived, combine those 2 and u got yaself a perfect storm.
xxxbdboydstyxxx 1 year ago
@isamarine
and Russia won alone? hahahahhaha plz, Who sent Weapons and Supply's, even Tanks to Russia? it was USA. look it up dumbass lol
xxxbdboydstyxxx 1 year ago
@xxxbdboydstyxxx Have you actually looked the number of tanks sent compared to Soviet tank/artillery/plane production? Probably not because you're an ignorant and obnoxious fool. Why do you think historians can agree that between 80-93% of all Wermacht soldiers died on the Eastern Front? Go learn some history from unbiased sources and discern the truth for yourself. Ignorance might be bliss to you but it only highlights your stupidity and lack of knowledge on the matter to others.
isamarine 1 year ago
You americans...HUH
irishbutterinkitty 1 year ago
Nazi-occupied Italy? Weren't Italy and Mussolini allies with the Germans and the Nazis were there to help them out? Or don't I remember my history straight? :/
kazath 1 year ago
@kazath Italy surrendered and sided with the Allies. Nazi then viewed Italy as an enemy and occupied them
nananeneh 1 year ago
if germans didnt attack ussr then allies would have been in big trouble
aziqbal 1 year ago 23
@aziqbal ten the ussr would have attacked next year with their new t34's!
Lacek666 1 year ago
@aziqbal if the germans had a giant rave party with Hitler as DJ and many glowsticks to go around they would have won
wokangoman 5 months ago in playlist ww2 --54 Full doc
I meant they didnt pay, sry.
Ixtzalit 1 year ago
They wanted to be the ones to payback Germany for their attrocities and made a deal with Western allies to take Berlin alone which is why Berlin was divided between the three major allies which eventually resulted eventually in the Berlin airlift and then the Berlin wall. Learn history.
tryithere 1 year ago
i wanna kill Badoglio and Vittorio Emanuele III by using Fasces!!
HeiligesReich2 1 year ago
look at all the fat americans in the video with 0 muscles.. u really think they won the war .. i guess not
PSEK 1 year ago
@PSEK Let me guess, your family were Waffen SS? Sucks to be on the losing side of the war, eh kraut?
13times 7 months ago
@13times iam on the loosin side? didnt know iam that old. funny u lost some wars too and ur country didnt even have a reason to start em. compared to ur history mine looks pretty good.
PSEK 7 months ago
Louisiana was a bullshit !!! Germans alertet US not to go in that place beacause there is german submarines...by they ignored and sent louisiana with intention to enter the war, nobody wants a shit form US..and now they vote a black president, is the most stupid and fat people on earth and they invent wars in middle east for resources...
AryanPride18 1 year ago
Long live RSI!!
Long live NDH!!
Long live L`Eat Francais!!
HeiligesReich2 1 year ago
@HeiligesReich2: long live Repetitive Strain Injury??
ooeyb 1 year ago
june 4th is my birthday haha
cmskid20 1 year ago
why where the allies bombing farm fields...
PIZZAGUYPOOP 1 year ago
I was hoping it would show the bombing of Brindisi where my Grandfather's regiment was destroyed during the much smaller part of the invasion on the east coast and the subsequent bombing of Foggia. I can't find much info about it.
Ramadl59 1 year ago
USSR played the largest role in defeating Germany,with the help of -40* conditions.
The Poles did fight bravely and were attacked by both USSR and Germany.
The Americans and British always played down the achievements of others in WW2,and sort of wrote history how they wanted,like WW2 Hollywood movies.
Ramadl59 1 year ago
@Ramadl59 who attacked the western front to draw troops from russia? every country played a large role, not just USSR.
yeason2010 1 year ago
@yeason2010
I didn't say USSR was the only country,they definitely played the biggest role in defeating Germany. Who was first to Berlin,who lost the most people,USSR. The allies were trying to keep up with them so they didn't occupy all of Germany.
Ramadl59 1 year ago
@Ramadl59 USSR was first to Berlin because they asked the allies to let them be the ones to take Berlin for payback for German attrocites. The other allies went along with it.
tryithere 1 year ago
@tryithere HAHAHA that's funny! The allies were always playing catch up,to the USSR. They were desperate to get to Berlin,before the soviets took it all. It's good propaganda though ;)
Ramadl59 1 year ago
@Ramadl59 Catching up? Russia fought WWII only between Moscow and Stalingrad to Berlin while the western allies like England and The USA along with lesser countries like Australia fought for the rest of the world. Stalin was begging the western allies to invade north west Italy to open a second front but they weren't ready for it and then decided to invade at Normandy. While Russia lost the most men, a large part of that was the Russian winter.
tryithere 1 year ago
@tryithere USSR defeated Germany,atomic bombs defeated Japan and Italy never stood a chance,so what? You sound like a hollywood director ;)
Ramadl59 1 year ago
@Ramadl59 USSR defeated germany with the help from the west. And USA had nly 2 atomic weapons, its wasnt that easy to build one. An attack on germany could have been very risky because germans would realise how the a bombs work.
Ixtzalit 1 year ago
fighting and dying for jewish banks and soviet commies ... idiots
ww2footage 1 year ago
Nazi occupied Italy, I hate this bullshit. First of the Germans had a lot of allies during ww2. Italy, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and other smaller states
Just like the British fought along with the americans so did these people fought with the Germans. The Germans fought in North Africa and Italy because the Italians asked them to, the Germans wanted to fight in Russia not in the mediterranean
tHeWasTeDYouTh 1 year ago
Compared with British Air planes and German ones like spit fire and Messar schmitt,Amercan airplanes seem to be bad in the view point of their mobility.
GSHelga 1 year ago
@GSHelga
during the latter part of the war it was really pilot quality that counted. The germans lost an awful lot of experienced pilots that couldnt be replaced as fast as the allies could replace theirs. The aircraft themselves were roughly equivilent to each other (i.e. fw190/spitfire V and IX). Factor into that the fact that german factories were under constant bombardment (slower to replace losses). Its more these factors than the actual aircraft themselves.
ooeyb 1 year ago
@GSHelga I wouldn't say that..... although the spitfire was maybe the most famous.
Check out the P-51 Mustang ( my favorite ) - arguably the best fighter late in the war, the P-47 Thunderbolt - impressive though not as nimble, and the F-4U Corsair - the best carrier fighter of the war, just as some examples :)
ohreallyandwhyisthat 1 year ago
the pilot must be good to land without weels.
did pilots have (that thing that is put on mouth to breath oxygen) at that time?,i thought it is new equipment!
wow lots of kills and injuries
kodsoul 1 year ago
@kodsoul
once you go past approx 11,000ft you need oxygen.
Considering that a bomber formation would drop its payload from approx 30,000ft then yes, they did have oxygen masks in wwii! ;-)
ooeyb 1 year ago
3:58 AWWW SICK D:
poor guy, RIP
whopper1209 1 year ago
its the anerversery of dday to day thankyou everyone who fought and R.I.P to all of those who sadly passed away
tombland10 1 year ago
the us have a big ego dont they
cowards
SnuffFawksXVIII 1 year ago
There are no p-38's in this video.
b1kfd 2 years ago
RALPHLAURINO ,,,Goat's milk is a very good source of calcium and the amino acid tryptophan. It is also a good source of protein, phosphorus, riboflavin (vitamin B2) and potassium. Perhaps the greatest benefit of goat's milk, however, is that some people who cannot tolerate cow's milk are able to drink goat's milk without any problems...so maybe you want to mention this to Mr Krishna and see if he wouldn't mind taking Goats off of the unimportant list.Well it would be immoral to leave them on eh?
Undercracker100 2 years ago 6
Comment removed
fononol 1 year ago
Interesting video. Thanks for posting it.
raymond08586 2 years ago
jesus 4.01 see whats left of that american pilot
diveplane 2 years ago
The planes in 2:46 are "The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt ". P-51 Mustangs has pointed frontal propeller. The air in-take is below the propeller and the exhaust cylinders are on the sides of the body near the front/nose
honeymaydew 2 years ago
what documentry is this is it availible on dvd???????
grundy901 2 years ago
2:46 P51d with twin gatling guns???? Seriously? Fucking kickass
smeghead666 2 years ago
It's a P-38
irrops 2 years ago
no from 2:44 to 2:50 it's a P-51 with a bomb load and what looks like twin 3 barrelled miniguns. You're right though because the planes just beforehand are P-38s
smeghead666 2 years ago
@smeghead666 - no they are 3x rocket projectiles (on each wing) on p47 thunderbolts. P47s & P51s were capable of ground attack when not needed as fighters.
ooeyb 1 year ago
@smeghead666 no, those are rockets.
boyidrski 2 years ago
does the USSR EXIST IN THT TIME???
yomamakid023 2 years ago
@yomamakid023 yes it did.
gangstaz001 2 years ago
ask yourself this - could the UK have won the war by itself - no way! Could the uk and the USSR have won it? Possibly/possibly not. If the US hadn't come into the war? - Well then i think we may have had a stand-off situation like in the film Fatherland, with the US as one superpower and the Nazis as the other.
ooeyb 2 years ago
you are forgetting all the other small countrys that faught along side the allies they ould of helped and i think that the whole european country together would of held of the nazis quitwell without american help
CanadianWarrior100 2 years ago
nope - the french army was antiquated and got bulldozed for a start. No army was equipped to take on the blitzkrieg at the time it happened. Remember that there were a lot of "small" countries that fought alongside germany also. We only really just got the job done as it was - with mistakes from hitler along the way (and ULTRA intelligence). Looking at it, we should never have invaded Italy directly for the reasons given below - i.e. a long and protracted campeign.
ooeyb 2 years ago
@ooeyb Guys, it is absurd to think the UK could have won the war going it alone. At least, without losing the English isles to Nazi invasion. read the memoirs of those leaders. Churchill in 1940 was considering moving the Royals to Canada and the fleet with them, but to continue fighting the bastards.
stybarrow 1 year ago
No mike, its quite a few (not, I stress, all by any means) americians that actually come across as ignorant of that fact. Ask most non-americian allies and they will say the same thing. Ok, maybe a a large, isolationist minority then. I'm certainly not anti-us by any stretch of the imagination. Its just that when us brits see hollywood films such as u96/Pearl Harbour etc... "bending the truth" we tend to get a little vexed about it. Patriot 911 above seems to understand what i'm saying.
ooeyb 2 years ago
italy was a tough battleground because of the mountainous terrain and lack of manouverability - this favours the defenders, and they knew it. Kesselring used it to max advantage.
ooeyb 2 years ago
4:03 poor pilot.
sardosfish 2 years ago
well, the US always give the impression that they won wwii by themselves and that the UK, USSR etc... played only a minor role. As a country i guess poland suffered more than any because of wwii (and its aftermath).
ooeyb 2 years ago 15
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I would have to say that Poland got what it deserved. What isn't told is that Polish troops made hundreds of raids aganst German civilians by crossing the border, sometimes multiple times a night. That's said to be fabricated but it wasn't. Hitler finally protected German families by sending in German troops.
SSWolf80 2 years ago
Did czechoslovakia, lithuania, denmark, norway, luxemberg, holland and belgium made night raids too?
Paciat 2 years ago
I haven't heard more bullshit in my life, fellar. The casus beli was prepared by the nazis wearing Polish uniforms. Like the assault they made on a radio sttn in Gleiwitz. Left some prisoners corpses dressed in the uniforms. Plus they had the demands, say ex-teritorial railway and a motorway. It would chop Poland off the coast. Western countries weren't bothered by nazi's agressive policy; that led to war, u ignorant.
KsiazeIgor 2 years ago
yeah it is the same way the USA has expanded itself since kenedy was killed
127quinn 2 years ago
True. Although u were quiet for the next 20years after being battered in Vietnam, which is widely called Vietnam syndrome. As it was hard to believe, that a super state got defeated by a bunch of communist peasants + that was their first lost war in the history.
KsiazeIgor 2 years ago
yah I used to work with a bunch of vietnamese people who were veterans from the other team here in california a few years ago and they are tough the vietnamese people work hard stick together are united and hardl;y rest at all they are very seriously disciplined people.
127quinn 2 years ago
There you go. You can't win with such an enemy, especially if you are the invader. BTW there's large vietnamese minority in Poland and I only can support your point: proud, stubborn and hardworking nation they are. No wonder u lost that war.
KsiazeIgor 2 years ago
@KsiazeIgor the US lost the vietnam war due to lack of support from their own liberalist publics lack of will to see things to the end (just like they may do in Afganistan). They wern't defeated militarily, and certainly had the airwar won.
ooeyb 1 year ago
@ooeyb Well, the opinions may vary. I'm not sure how the Nam War is being taught in the States, although military speaking the US really lost this conflict. No political bonuses whatsoever, no ground offensives won as well, the number of engaged GI permanently growing altogether with the losses, therefore the US Gov't intended for vietnamization of war. There's no books or historians out there reckoning America won this war. BTW - that's off top :/
KsiazeIgor 1 year ago
@KsiazeIgor
Nam was not a war that needed to be fought to the end (unlike WWII). Militarily, the US were actually WINNING the vietnam war, even with one hand tied behind their backs. However, there is also another way to loose a war, and that is politically.
North vietnamese/Vietcong losses were enormous in comparison with US losses (look at things like the tet offensive) and it is psycologically disconcerting when the enemy seem to have unlimited manpower.
ooeyb 1 year ago
@ooeyb The US had a major military supremacy over the Vietcong, they couldn't take advantage of it though. Pesticides and napalm bombs against the guerrillas and tunnels? Erm, no. By the way, if they had a chance to kick Vietnamese arse, they would. Too many countries were engaged, there was no chance for the Western states to win it. Neither French nor the Americans could win, end of.
KsiazeIgor 1 year ago
@KsiazeIgor certain aspects of it they were winning. I didn't say it was a winnable war, but it certainly wasn't a military defeat. Korea can be classed as a draw because both sides got what they wanted. Anyway, all this is interesting but off topic like you say, so I'll stop now ;-)
ooeyb 1 year ago
@KsiazeIgor The Viet Cong were eliminated as an effective military force in 1968 and the war should have ended in 1969. It was the NVA and eroding American confidence who were the lethal threat snatching Defeat from the jaws of Victory. Ho himself admits this. Staring directly into the eyes of a costly American victory, Walter Cronkite ("the most trusted man in America") tells his viewers the opposite, that the war was unwinable. This insidious remark turned the tide of American support.
SavethePlace 1 year ago
The United States played a large part in the war thats indisputiable since we made countless rounds of ammo tens of thousands of planes (some like the P-39 and P-63 were almost sent exculsivly to the Russians who loved thembecuase of their heavy firepower) but to think we take all the credit is ridiculous. the P-51 was created at the request of the RAF and it was the RAF that first put the Rolls Royce Merlin engine to create the great fighter that it became.
patriot91101rip 2 years ago
im american and i aknowledge and respect the fact the russians lost a total of almost 20 million soldiers and civilians in ww2. you are just ignorant
Mike91337 2 years ago
@ooeyb No, the American movie industry does not make many movies about the Polish contribution to the war effort. i guess you expect them to ? Poland got rolled early in the war and you are upset that your effort in Italy isnt properly celebrated ?
stybarrow 1 year ago
Comment removed
ooeyb 1 year ago
@stybarrow - I didnt say anything about 'expecting' the us movie industry to acknowledge the Polish contribution to the war effort! Im British, not Polish!! I'm talking about films like U571 etc. I don't think its the veterans etc. that think like this - mainly most young Americans who can't be bothered to learn their History and the US film industry.
ooeyb 1 year ago
@ooeyb calm down, hot rod. i cited Polish events and contributions in the war because KSIAZELGOR (see below) was bemoaning there being no mention of Monte Cassino combat. as for "U571", i completely agree with you. But perhaps you European historians should direct a bit of angst towards the Russian allies, as i dont think they put much publicity out on your respective nations war efforts either.
stybarrow 1 year ago
@stybarrow I suppose you are quite right there. The UK only just finished paying its war debt to the us a few years ago. Despite us and the yanks sending them a lot of equipment to replace their losses (hurricanes/spitfires/air cobras/matildas/shermans etc.) Russia barely seems to acknowledge its war allies. I wonder if they actually paid for the equipment we sent them during the war?
ooeyb 1 year ago
@stybarrow U571? Don't get me started on the film Pearl Harbour, where Ben Afleck & co. 'win' the Battle of Britian for us, and go on to 'slaughter' Jap planes in the Harbour ;-). I think US veterens must be just as miffed as anyone else about the US film industries portrayal of these events too...
ooeyb 1 year ago
@ooeyb yes, that Hollywood would actually commit such raw revisionism of war history is disturbing. And its not even necessary. i mean, the Brit actor can play an American or the American can play a Brit. but you dont have to butcher key pieces of history. and you are also right concerning opinions of the US vets, they prefer that the true story be told. there was more than plenty valor and courage amongst the Allied ranks (including Poland, KSIAZELGOR).
stybarrow 1 year ago
Of course the us are going to make loads of films about their part in the war, like we did just after it, but at least ours are factual (dam busters, battle of Britain etc).
The danger with films like u571 is ignorance. The surviving Royal Navy guys that actually captured the 1st kriegsmarine enigma machine were hopping mad when that film came out, because it was nothing to do with the US, who did admittedly capture an enigma machine much later in the war under similar circumstances.
ooeyb 1 year ago
@ooeyb Do NOT.. forget that without the Allied effort.. (not just Russia) Securing North Africa and bombing the Ruhr and all of Germany with the airpower and Naval power the Soviets would not have been so successful.
Furthermore.. DO NOT FORGET how Russia quit on us in World War 1 and left us to fight the rest of that entire war. Russia was the meat grinder in WW2 for a damn good reason.
Sicj 1 year ago
@Sicj
Also very true. The USSR, as we all know, was on the axis side at the beginning of the war.
IMHO, and I think most peoples, the big turning point was the battle of britain. If he'd removed the UK from the war then it's certain it would have gone on much longer at least. Hitler made so many mistakes during the BOB.
ooeyb 1 year ago
@ooeyb imo I think the USSR did the most of them all, I think they were the ones who helped the most and turned the tide of the war
H3LLK3RN 1 year ago
@ooeyb Correct the americans did a lot but Canada, Australia, Britian and other countries did a lot of the work themselves.
supramanz 1 year ago
@ooeyb Without the United States manufacturing war equipment 24/7 WW11 may not have been won by the allies!
lander4545 1 year ago
@lander4545 the key phrase being "may not" here. IMO, like I said before, without the US entering the war and providing war equipment whilst remaining out of it, I think it would have ended in stalemate, with all except the Americian continent being under the control of the axis powers. Perhaps a nuclear conflict would have ensued afterwards at some time to end the stalemate...
ooeyb 1 year ago
@lander4545 who knows ur makin urself bigger than u are.. germans had machine guns while americans startedthe war with 5 shot guns lol.... there were more candians and blacks which were forced to fight than americans.. actually the americans did nothin except sellin weapons and shit to the british and other countries for a way to high prize... and after they squished out all money they decided to join the war.. poor fuckin american trashcans
PSEK 1 year ago
@PSEK You'll be o.k. as soon as the fog clears! ; )
lander4545 1 year ago
@ooeyb how very true is that! And Poland has been destroyed completely by the front lines crossing its territory all over the place, which only makes it's war effort even bigger.
KsiazeIgor 1 year ago
@ooeyb Americans lost only 416,000 men in WW 2. How is it possible to win such a war with that numbers. Hitler send over 3 million men to take Russia, and in the Battle of Stalingrad alone over 1 million Germans and her allies and 1.8 million Russian solders were killed. US can suck my dick!!!
yeah I am sorry of the Polish people
AlexanderDiArmani 1 year ago
@AlexanderDiArmani
apart from insulting the US, i'm not sure what u r getting at. As someone already said here, the main contribution to the us war effort was the supply of fighting materials to the allies. Without it britian and probably the ussr too would have been knocked out of the war (remember, the us supplied a substantial amount of equipment to the ussr - as did the uk, at a critical time fairly early in the war.
ooeyb 1 year ago
@ooeyb USA supported other nations with ressources, weapons etc. but they did it because as 1. They feared germany and its military power and 2. Lend lease was a perfect investment for the us. As germans attacked SU USA didnt want support it. They wanted that Germans and soviets kill each other, there is even a book about it. But they realised that SU would not stand a chance against german forces and germany would become the worlds superpower.SU paid with blood, USA with money..
Ixtzalit 1 year ago
@Ixtzalit well, as with everything in life, this may partly be true - at least with the us dealing with the ussr. However, there were and still are strong cultural links between english speaking parts of the world - the us had absolutely no reason to fear the british (despite its navy bing the biggest in the world at that time). Stalin, of course, was just as much a tyrant as hitler. As for lend-lease to the ussr, i dont think they ever paid for the equipment they got - at least not in money.
ooeyb 1 year ago
@Ixtzalit/@alex - you are also forgetting that the us suffered greatly in the pacific vs the japs, and were really the only nation in a position to fight there. Half a million lost doesnt sound like being a lot, but then us civilians were never involved directly in the war. It's enough, and roughly what the UK suffered too.
ooeyb 1 year ago
@ooeyb Yes, us fought against japs, but japs fought against inbited nations in asia which was much biggger then the american army. UdSSR paid for lend leade materials and ressources but they didnt paid all. I think they stopped to pay in 1970 but i am not exactly sure about this date.
Ixtzalit 1 year ago
@AlexanderDiArmani the numbers of defeated soldiers do not mean they are inferior. An army can fight with or without air -, naval- or artillery support. Sovies, amerians and brits got massive support, while germans had only limited support. Artillery and airplanes kill soldiers too :). And yes, USA hadnt that many diviions in WWII. Without SU and britain USA wouldnt not be able to defeat germany.
Ixtzalit 1 year ago
@Ixtzalit remember that the germans were very close to defeating the ussr early in the war. The germans were on the outskirts of moscow! I guess luck/the weather and stupid errors by hitler and his cronies played a big part in the axis loosing the war too!
ooeyb 1 year ago
@ooeyb ofc, but it wasnt that essential. Germans couldnt use all their industry and divisions against SU. They had many divisions in france and italy, north and a couple of divisions in africa. Thx to lend lease soviets massive support that helped them to repel germans. The reserve armies were equipped thx to USA. They got even clothes and ammo from them. This is just the beginning...Without allied help soviets wouldnt defeat germans.
Ixtzalit 1 year ago 18
mave.foorumi.eu
marjis3 1 year ago
Comment removed
fononol 1 year ago
@ooeyb Your country Great Britain had no chance of winning WW2 without American support. You Brits have a tendency to be delusional about history.
Dominick629 1 year ago
Comment removed
ooeyb 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Dominick629 @Dominick629 - I am guessing you are from the USSR judging from your homepage?
"You Brits have a tendency to be delusional about history"
As do many of your countrymen about how you were on the right side in the war (remember the USSR were allied with Germany first). First, if you had bothered to look at the many, many (copyright: commandant Lissare from Police Academy) comments I have posted here before you posted, nowhere have I indicated I was under any such delusion.
ooeyb 1 year ago
@ooeyb You wrote a lot. Most of what you said I agree with. But nothing you said was relevant to my post. My point was that Brits like to play revisionist historians and delude themselves into thinking that a victory against Nazi Germany was possible without the USA. This is just British national pride overtaking reality.
Dominick629 1 year ago
@Dominick629
Like who exactly? I know of no one in the UK that holds the view that we could have won WWII by ourselves! This is a very interesting comment from someone who doesnt actually live here! I have to say that this view you hold is most certainly not a common view. Anyone thinking this would be delusional - even with the Commonwealth forces at our disposal. Is that relevent enough to your post?!
ooeyb 1 year ago
@ooeyb You are telling me you've never seen delusional comments on a world war two video made by Brits claiming that the USA wasn't necessary for victory? It's on every damned video.
Dominick629 1 year ago
@Dominick629 no - I don't ever recall any such remark from anyone important (you say it occurs everywhere), and if I'd had, I think the person/s that said it would be rebuffed by any sensible military historian. Please direct me towards an example - if you can. The US was important to the Allied war effort in so many ways. I await your direction with interest...
ooeyb 1 year ago
The UK war industry wasn't particularly large and our tanks were at least one step behind the Gerries throughout the war.
ooeyb 1 year ago
@Dominick629 - so I'm still waiting for you to follow up on your claim... If such material exists and it exists everywhere, then why can' tyou direct me to it? Guess you just want to see if you can wind me up eh?! The bottom line is WWII pretty much affected every country, so we ALL did our bit - the end ;-)
ooeyb 1 year ago
@Dominick629 - Rather, if you bother to read any of them you will actually discover that I believe it would have been touch and go with a UK/US OR UK/USSR pact. So therefore I am actually AGREEING with you!
We won the most important battle in Europe - the battle of Britain. Without a victory for the allies there, Germany would have only had to fight on one major front, its factories wouldn't have been under constant heavy aerial bombardment from the RAF/USAAF for most of the war...
ooeyb 1 year ago
@ooeyb Not true. Hitler declared war on the United States after the US declared war on Japan. The Battle of Britain was an important victory, but with or without victory, Germany would have been fighting two fronts. Germany on the British Isles would have been an intolerable threat to the U.S.. We simply would have been forced to liberate Britain first before liberating France. Britain deserves respect for her resistance, but she didn't win the war in 1940, a second front would have been opened.
SavethePlace 1 year ago
@SavethePlace Would it? Perhaps. Put it would have been extremely difficult for the US to fight in the Pacific AND the Atlantic. The Germans would have set up early warning posts and would have seen the US coming from a mile off, built more and better u-boats.... it would have been absolutely horrendous for US forces, who would have lost 100s of 1000s of men. Also, don't forget, the Jerrys may then have well been able to develop the Atom bomb before the US.
ooeyb 1 year ago
The UK was absolutely vital for stopping them from developing the bomb. The USSR put all their efforts into defeating the germans on the ground. Clandestine ops were left under the control of the brits (who then trained/supplied the french resistance etc.).
ooeyb 1 year ago
@Dominick629 ... and thus the Germans, who made it to the outskirts of Moscow even with a potential second front to defend (not forgetting N Africa) would have very probably knocked the USSR out of the war. It's worth mentioning (as I have said in one of my comments) that the US (and UK) supplied critical war material to the USSR - who were in dire need of it at the time. And good equipment too (when they were also needed by the suppliers) - Spitfires/P40s/P39s/Shermans/Matilda tanks...
ooeyb 1 year ago
@Dominick629 also dont forget that in the first few months of the war, soviet equipment and men were decimated by the germans thanks to stalins purges and indecision...
ooeyb 1 year ago
Yeah, not even a bloody word said about the Poles storming the Monte Cassino monastery, where the German paras stopped the entire allied army on their way to Rome. Everyone tried to take it over, only the Poles succeeded. God bless our soldiers who died in that ruthless battle.
KsiazeIgor 2 years ago 7
Very good! Not many ppl even know that the Poles were there. And they did a mighty job of kicking German ass and taking the abbey.
Eye4Lites 2 years ago
1. Poles were allies.
2. Poles succeeded in capturing Monte Cassino becouse the weatcher was good (but was a hard thing to do anyway).
God bless all allied soldiers.
Paciat 2 years ago
Thanks for admitting it was an impossible thing to do. As it was, period.
KsiazeIgor 2 years ago
god bless all soldiers that fought and payed the ultimate price :)
MrSweatyPants 2 years ago
@KsiazeIgor
My grandfather was a Polish-American who fought in Italy. He was at Salerno, Cassino, and the ill-fated Rapido River crossing. Both allied victories and defeats in Italy were not the results of individual nations or soldiers, but a combined effort of them all. Everyone deserves their respects.
I don't think anyone's arguing that the Soviets made the greatest sacrifice in the war as whole, but great individual sacrifices were made everywhere.
V4zCeNt 1 year ago
@V4zCeNt : Hey bud, you're right. This war was a tragedy for every nation which took a part in it. Some nation though paid the greater contribution ( i.e. Poland or the Soviet Union) than the others did and the role of another countries is still being neglected, I am afraid. The western countries' war chronicles are often showing their effort as the largest, not even mentioning their less powerful allies. That's what the propaganda is like. If I comment anything I try to enlighten people .
KsiazeIgor 1 year ago
@V4zCeNt I've been living in the UK for over 3 years and they know fuck all about the effort the Poles did to protect their island and the Europe. In the US they know even lesser than that, unfortunately. No offence then, mate, I'm only trying to inform :).
KsiazeIgor 1 year ago
@KsiazeIgor well
HORNE19730607 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@KsiazeIgor well fuck off back to poland then you fucking rat ,we British dont want you here . we fucking hate you ,you fucking subhuman mongo race . get the fuck out of Britain ,British jobs for British workers . go home pole.
HORNE19730607 1 year ago
@KsiazeIgor hey - not fair! I know plenty about how the poles carried the fight on after their country was occupied. And I also acknowledge how badly the poles were treated here too, unfortunately. I believe the highest scoring RAF squadron (303?) in the battle of britain was polish-manned - flying Spitfires.
ooeyb 1 year ago
@ooeyb spot on there, fellar, good on you. I really should NOT generalize, who am I to judge? :) But the thing is I'm a historian by the trade and I met loads of people saying false facts about the WWII, whether it was in the UK or in other countries. The idea is to expose "our" effort and hide the losses, this is propaganda, that's the way it works everywhere, PL included. Poles fought bravely on every front, I owe them to tell the people all over the world their death is not forgotten.
KsiazeIgor 1 year ago
@ooeyb Poles served the Allies so very well, then the British had them slaughtered at Oosterbeek.
SavethePlace 1 year ago
@SavethePlace ... along with the thousands of British who were slaughtered at Arnhem. You really can't generalise, mate.
ooeyb 1 year ago
Hi L, that vedic thought is good.
knighterrantfilms 2 years ago
Ace vid
knighterrantfilms 2 years ago
moomoo is right
type in and watch this vid inbred italians!:
Battlefield II: "El Alamein" (1/11)
TheBrummie007 2 years ago
i dont understand how the burning plain has anything to do with the invasion. thousands of people, died dosnt say much about that.
TDogg186 2 years ago
my grandas ship was part of this invasion hms penelope
carsieplg 2 years ago
Can't we all just get along? Both sides of the War fought bravely for their countries. =]
mcwtomtom 2 years ago
Brazil had an important participation in the invasion of Italy
oliversul 2 years ago
Comment removed
hawwaw 2 years ago
Haha, don't lie to yourself.
GShepardP 2 years ago
audio is really weird, but it helped on my webquest :P
osxdude 3 years ago
blablabla boooooooooooooooring
wupsi001 3 years ago
The weather looks nice, think i'll go there for my holidays
moomoo1337 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Stay at home bastardo, you and yuor fucked allied are not welcome in Italy
madoncina 2 years ago