During this D-Day My Father was a member of the 517th Parachute Infantry Regiment (AKA 517th Parachute Regimental Combat Team with the addition of the 460th Parachute Field Artillery Battalion and the 596th Airborne Engineer Company) which was part of the 1st Airborne Taskforce which provided the Airborne slice of operation Dragoon ("The Champagne Campaign"")
Been reading WWII history since 1970s. Always amazes me how the Allies were able to conduct the Normandy landings in June 1944; the invasions of Saipan, Guam, & Tinian in July 1944; and the Southern France invasion in August 1944. The logistics are just mind-boggling!!
All true but regarding the Balkens the British appeared to be in denial about how hard it was going to be to get past German defended mountain passes. They appear to have learned nothing from the challenges of Monte Casino.
Correct. They would not have gotten anywhere, despite it being the only way to stop Stalin. Historically all wars in the Balkans have been difficult and in hindsight the decisions at the western Allies made were correct. Churchill was gifted for being able to foresee the broad strokes of the political future and he was trying to fight today's and tomorrow's war today. America fought today's war today and tomorrow's war tomorrow and won. Classic American doctrine since isolationism. It works well for them, but it's a messy strategy that results in much hardship, such as Eastern Europe being behind the curtain for half a century. Perhaps Roosevelt was not taken in by Stalin's charm as history writes and laid Eastern Europe open as a bribe for Stalin to push to Berlin as fast as possible, which is exactly what the western Allies needed. After all Roosevelt had the Manhattan Project and who knows how his thoughts about how to deal with Stalin were influenced by that knowledge. The 20th century was FUBAR.
@@hamletksquid2702 No. You're forgetting an important constituent in warfare-timetables. It doesn't matter if the Canadians went in the Germans would have slowed them down and inflicted serious casualties. After D-Day, it was all about timetables and capturing as much territory as possible.
There are a few issues with landing in the balkans (or IIRC the specific area Churchill wanted to land was the northern coast of Croatia, then head inland towards Liubjiana, Slovenia): A) the ports in the area aren’t especially great like the ones at Marseille and Toulon. Off the top of my head the closest decent port is Trieste, with Venice some kilometers away and Split if they wanted to land further south. B) The terrain here is incredibly mountainous, and during WW1 the front int this general area between Italy and Austria-Hungary barely moved at all. Even if they tried to go around the alps and snake through Hungary, Slovakia and Czechia there’s still the Sudetes to get over to get to Berlin before the Reds. So my guess is it probably wouldn’t make much of a difference.
Remember, the Nazis had conquered the Balkans in a month in 1941, & they were spread very thin in 1944. A well-planned, organized & supplied attack would’ve had the same results the Germans had in 1944. A very large reason for the allied problems in Italy was the “beached whale” at Anzio that gave Kesselring time to bring up forces and create a stalemate that lasted almost 5 months, while organizing defensive lines across Italy.
And do not forget Tito's communist partisans, they would have claimed most of Yugoslavia anyways, and Tito was behind the later brutal civil war between the Greek communists and the anti-communist Gov't forces. And Austria was later agreed to be a nuetral state. Lastly the big 3 aready had agreed to Stalin gaining land, he would have seen it as a betrayal.
I’ve driven from Divulje barracks near Split up to Banja Luka and the narrow road winding up and over the mountains would be horrific to fight over. A painful advance slowed at every bend or bridge over the rivers by mines, AT guns and ambushes whilst your arty can’t give indirect fire is a nightmarish scenario. North of Bosnia into Croatia it resembled more like Germany with rolling countryside to manoeuvre in. Dragoon was best option due to supply. Normandy beaches couldn’t supply fully as it was, Norway, Balkans or Italy were mountainous.
Lucas Therrien Thank you 🙏 for your explanation it really answers the question WTF WAS Churchill's plan in the first place?? AND WHERE in the balkans ??
After participating in the landings at Anzio and fighting through Italy, my grandfather was recalled and then participated in Operation Dragoon when he landed in a glider in Southern France. Thanks for doing the video about this!
My father was there too and at anzio. He was on the outskirts of Rome when he was pulled and readied for southern France. Was your grandfather a paratrooper or other. Do you know what division he was with. My dad was with the 45th
@@jeffmiller1159 My grandfather was also with the 45th Infantry Div. I don't think he was a paratrooper but he did land in a glider near Champagne France. He also went on to liberate Dachau. My grandfather's brother (my great uncle) was also in the division with him.
@@bigbillyb0b that gives me chills. No there weren't any paratroopers in the 45th that I know of. I also didn't know that they sent gliders in with regular troops. Dad was at Dachau also. His MP group was brought in immediately upon discovery to allow the front line units to advance. He said there was a bad juju in that place and some horrible things. Did he ever tell you about it,? Dad had in his medals two arrowheads which were for the established beachheads at Anzio and southern France
The citizens of Eastern Europe since then felt abandoned by the Americans and British, and left them to suffer and die under Stalin. General Patton was disgusted by the bowing to Stalin. The Russians would never get back to Germany without "Made in the USA" equipment. That should have been enough. But stopping Patton from entering Berlin and quickly go further was a massive mistake. A mistake that was repeated by Truman in Korea.
They both wanted to fight a war they would not have won. And they would have been risking whatever was left of democracy in North America and the UK to do it. The British people knew perfectly well what they were doing when they threw out Churchill from office barely two months after VE Day. As for Patton, if you're all for handing your life over to a grandiose narcissist, be my guest. Just don't take anyone else with you.
Churchill largely caused the cold war so it's later existence does not support Churchill's desire to cause it sooner, when it could have been mostly avoided with diplomacy had Churchill himself not instigated it.
Generally speaking, people don’t like to be wrong. People especially don’t like to be proven wrong. Taking an objective look at operation dragoon proved a lot of high-ranking officials got it wrong while the grumpy old man got it right and history has vindicated Winston Churchill. Regardless, communism and the great experiment eventually failed the Berlin wall fell large swaths of Eastern Europe eventually shook off the communist yolk and instead of ruling over a vast reaching widespread empire Vladimir Putin is more concerned with launching cyber attacks, thumbing his nose at American presidents, and generally wishing he was as powerful as Stalin once was.
@@alan6832 I don't think Churchill caused the cold war, I think that blame can be caused by inflated egos of the Allied states. The cold war could have been avoided had Germany been more successful on the eastern front and taken Moscow, and then let Patton take care of Berlin.
Ultimately, FDR was correct. We won the Cold War, minimal casualties, Korea and Vietnam not withstanding, and simply outspent the USSR. The Balkans would have been a quagmire very far from supply, surrounded by potentially two enemy groups (German and now Russian because we pissed them off) and trapped as in Gallipoli, Churchill's first mistake. Italy was touted by Churchill as the "soft underbelly" but that wasn't the case. It was a virtually stagnant killing and proving ground, nothing more. Churchill seemed to be obsessed with the grand flanking maneuver that was not practical.
Victory in the Cold War wasn't even as close to obvious as it is now. As late as in the 70s many Western economists believed that the USSR would surpass the US economically. Were they victims of Soviet propaganda or cryptocommies? I have no idea. All i know is we should have nuked Moscow as planned in Operation Unthinkable
For all of his brilliance, Churchill was blinded by the Balkans. The terrain was terrible, the people were horribly divided, and it would have ended up as a major drain of resources. In the end it would have ended up most likely as a Vietnam situation in Eastern Europe as the strongest faction was the Communist under Tito.
Churchill had a lot of ideas that seemed good on paper but when exposed to reality didn't quite seem as rosy as he'd imagined. I honestly feel like invading the Balkans was one of them, considering the mountainous terrain, the weird political situation there, the fewer available landing beaches.
I agree and why in ww1 he botched it also. People tend to forget that. He sure wasn't a great planner a better front man to bring the country together that's all
Yes, a campaign in the balkans would have been risky, and could end up to be another Italy. Thats another front that would have been static, with only a handfull of germans divisions needed for defense
So what? Why is this kind of racism acceptable? IT IS RACISM. They were simply AMERICANS like millions of others of all colors. Democrats have always been the racists and put Japanese families into PRISON CAMPS because of skin color as they Project about everyone elses racism.
@@mitch_the_-itch No, Japanese were put into camps because we were at war with Japan and their loyalty could not be assured, especially when we were losing. was there racism involved? Of course, America was a very racist country at the time. It was still a prudent, reasonable, and constitutional war measure. The fact that Japanese men were permitted to serve in the armed forces, and that all the camps were closed down and the internees released in 1943, shows that racism was not the primary factor involved in the policy. Racism was also not the reason that the Japanese servicemen were no allowed to serve in the Pacific theater. It was well understood that if they were ever to be captured they would face the most horrific treatment from Japanese forces. First generation German personnel were kept out of the European theater for the same reason. Fun Fact: Adolf Hitler's nephew, William Patrick Hitler, served in the United States Navy during the war.
@@odysseusrex5908 FDR and the racist Democrat imprisoned an entire group of people unconstitutionally because of their skin color, AGAIN, lol. RACISM plain and simple. You can make any excuse you want for it, lol. Not a new behavior from Democrats and as white men know in 2021 it will continue.
@@mitch_the_-itch - If you go far enough back in time, nearly everybody was racist. But people evolve - try to keep up. For example, during the 1960s and 1970s, the "Southern Strategy" of Nixon and other Republican elites resulted in most white racist Democrats switching to the Republican party, particularly in the southern states. This political alignment continues today, with the formerly Democratic-voting south voting Republican for decades. Today African American voters vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, typically in the 90% or higher range. AAs are one of the most reliable Democratic voting blocs. Please explain what qualifies you to detect racism against African Americans better than African Americans themselves can detect. Do you also believe that Noah's Ark is literally real, and that Trump was cheated out of his election landslide win by Hugo Chavez from beyond the grave?
@@danielmocsny5066 The Southern Strategy was complete bullshit made up by the real Racists of the Democrat Party that were simply PROJECTING away their own sin. Democrats created the KKK, DUH. "BUT BUT BUT THE PARTYS SWITCHED OR SOMETHING." LOL. Today the Democrat Party is still the Party of Racism. Simply listen to them spew racism every single day. You silly indoctrainted racists are the problem, not the solution. The next time Democrats lose a Civil War we arent going to be so nice to you Communist anti Americans.
Knowing the Germans were fighting tooth & nail to hold Italy, the Allies should have staged invasions in southern France and the Balkans. That way the Italian front would have been cut off completely, then they could have rolled up to Berlin, and kept on trucking to the Russian border.
How would Italy have been cut off? Have you ever looked at a map of Europe? It's South of Switzerland which wasn't fully neutral, they allowed Nazi supply and troop trains to run through and it (Italy) is also South West of Austria, which was part of the Nazi German Reich at the time.
@@GazB85 yeah i dont get it either. Maybe He means surrounded on two fronts sort of like they were in real life with russians attacking from the east and allies from the West.
When talking about Operation Dragoon, it's usually forgotten to mention the Allies' forecasts of their progress. They planned to be at the level of Lyon around All Saints' Day: whether they were below or above Lyon, they did not specify... However, less than a month after the landing, they were at the foot of the Vosges! (Cavalaire - Lyon: more than 400 km; Lyon - the Vosges: more than 300 km) Already after Operation Overlord, after which there had been a rather slow progression at the begining, there had been major logistical problems: all the more so for the operation Dragoon, which was like a blitzkrieg. The Allies were therefore forced to stop in mid-September, about 30 km from Belfort, which opened the way to Alsace and the Rhine. The offensive resumed about two months later; and hardly anyone knows that French troops on this occasion bypassed Belfort along the Swiss border and reached the Rhine without the furious German counterattacks ever cutting them off from their rear.
Awesome minidoc, ty! You should put more blips of maps when mentioning key areas, to help people have a better mental picture.. They don't have to be long - just 3 seconds or so; if anyone cares to see them longer they could pause
I'm used to millennials using ANY wartime footage on their channel, BUT when we got the same Russian soldier holding his PPSh and looking at the camera, for the THIRD time??? I knew they were just LAZY. After the PPSh man we have a russian cameraman filming Berlin and a soldier holding a RED Flag, recognizable even in black and white. In the FUTURE Dark Docs should show GENERIC film for each combatant. Japan will be BANZAI soldiers after Singapore fall. England will be scrambling pilots for Battle of Britain. Russia will be soldiers storming Berlin Chancellory building. USA will be raising FLAG at IWO JIMA. France will be SURRENDER in Compiegne railway car. These pieces of film will BEST describe each country's EFFORT in WWII
My uncle was an US MP attached to Free French troops and in charge of captured prisoners. He was attacked and badly beaten by POW’s. On the way to the aid station near St Maxime, the jeep ran over a mine. Of the four men in the jeep, two died. He survived, although, he was paralyzed for the remainder of his life.
As with many others my Grandfather was part of this. We almost lost him. He was wounded and taken prisoner by the Germans. Him and one of his friends were forced to carry dead bodies by the Germans after he recovered. We never got much out of him concerning his captivity. I worked with him as a teen growing up so I might have gotten the most from him. They often traded Red Cross cigarettes for food from the Germans. I think he pitied them (The Germans) for how they had been brainwashed. The Germans knew what was happening in the Jewish camps. He is pictured in a book along with other freed prisoners of that particular camp and other camps. "The Greatest Generation". Ultimately the ordeal shortened his life. He died at the age of 59. I still try to recall all our conversations. I am 57 now.
Agree partially, but I’d say more of the blame lies with Montgomery and his Hubris.. Ultimately Churchill and SHAEF can only go by his judgement on that particular operation. And boy was it a shit show
If the Soviets had lost millions upon millions of casualties, lost their greatest source of grain due to invasion/scorched earth withdrawal tactics, relocated their heavy industry east of the Urals, and gone deeply into debt due to foreign aid...and then had nothing to show for it by the end of the war, there would certainly have been long-festering resentment that would have eclipsed what actually went down during the Cold War in our timeline. Don't get it twisted...I strongly disapprove of the Soviets dominating Eastern Europe after the war, but we have to consider how they would have felt, being shut out of any kind of meaningful gains after taking such devastating losses. Think about what happened in Germany during the interwar years. I regret what happened in Eastern Europe after the war, but things might have gone much worse if an economically stagnant, pissed off Soviet Union spent the next decade or two brooding over the loss of land they felt was rightfully theirs.
@@michaelshore2300 The subject matter touched on Churchill's wish for a 3rd front in the Balkans. There was never a U.S., British, French push in the Balkans or Eastern Euro countries, therefore, the video footage of eastern front battles used when describing western front battles should not have been used (and it was done twice in this video). An obvious case of lazy editing.
I watched for that. In most of the places in the video where there are Red Army troops shown is when the narrator is specifically talking about actions on the Eastern front. There WAS a glitch somewhere at the 8:30 mark where he did goof. At the end, he did show Russians in Berlin, but that was in the context of the war coming to an end.
My dad was a combat vet with the 3rd infantry division in this operation. He almost never talked about the war. He lied about his age at 16 to join the army after pearl harbor.
Upon further research on this topic, there are several problems with Churchill's call for a Balkans invasion: 1) The German army in Italy, under the masterful hand of Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, had not capitulated and would not until three days before the formal end of the war with Germany. He guarded the Italian Alps specifically to prevent the Allies from either invading Germany directly through the Alps or by flanking his lines from the East. 2) To invade the Balkans, the Allies needed to control the North Adriatic Sea. Germany denied them access until the last of its retreating units surrendered on May 4, 1945. The Kriegsmarine, depleted as it was, still harassed British and Free French naval operations and sowed thousands of mines all across the North Adriatic. British minesweeping operations continued for weeks after the war ended. Also, the Germans blocked all available ports and canals in the area, meaning Allied troops in the Balkans would have to be supplied by air. 3) Allied progress in Italy. Though steady, Allied troops made slow progress up the Italian peninsula. Britain had withdrawn most of the 8th Army for Overlord, leaving behind Commonwealth troops, primarily from India, Australia, New Zealand, and various African colonies to carry on the fight. Those nations had signed on to ultimately take the fight to Germany but not to conduct political side operations. Fighting through the Balkans would likely have been worse than the conditions at Monte Cassino. 4) American strength. American planners had assembled almost 50 additional infantry divisions to send to France to exploit the successes of Overlord. A Balkans operation would have required diverting at least half of them to the Adriatic. To make up for the diversion of those divisions likely would have meant taking troops away from the Pacific, where American forces now approached Japan's inner defense ring, which had larger targets (like the Philippines and Okinawa) that would need Army troops to take and hold. Also, those fresh troops had little to no combat experience. Combat vets not only from the U.S. 7th Army but from France as well would have to be redirected. That would hurt the Overlord operation. 5) British weakness. By 1944, the bulk of Britain's best troops were committed to Overlord or to the Burma operations in the Pacific. The Brits did not possess the troop strength to participate in the Balkans in any meaningful way. It is telling the Churchill did not aggressively push for his Balkans plan until American forces had entered the theater in large numbers. One can only imagine the political fallout from creating a plan that depended on Americans doing most of the fighting in an area no one but Churchill really had an interest in. 6) Potential post-war exhaustion. Churchill was thinking ahead and was right about the coming Cold War. However, the West was nearing exhaustion. Back in America, extra efforts were needed to keep up morale and continue selling war bonds to fund the war. American leaders had specifically created the goal of ending the war by Christmas 1944 to boost morale at home. That said, military and civilian planners had set out to help administer and rebuild war-torn nations as they were liberated or captured. Their efforts had always been on Western Europe and Germany. A Balkans operation would have almost doubled the supplies and personnel necessary to effectively govern the area and, by extension, keep a lid on the ethnic tensions that had only been handled by brutal strongmen for centuries (Ottomans, Austro-Hungarian Empire, etc.).As later shown shortly after the final peace with Germany, Americans were overwhelmingly in favor of getting their troops back home and it proved a struggle to retain the men and equipment necessary to handle post-war Europe and Japan. One simply could not ask these brave men and women to then face off against the Soviets. 7) Cross Purposes. Essentially, diverting the men and material necessary for a Balkans campaign, including occupation troops for the region would likely have backfired. It would have meant fewer troops and supplies for the Overlord operation. The supply problem would have become crippling, thus prolonging the war on the western front. It still would have allowed the Soviets to reach Berlin first and maybe even further to the Rhine. It also might have allowed the Soviets to take Norway and Sweden, to prevent the West from blocking access to the Atlantic. The West might have saved the likes of Romania but could have had a Russian satellite nation right on the border of France and Italy, and well within spitting distance of Great Britain. That actually might have made for an even more intense Cold War. 8) And, most important, Josip Broz. The man later known as Marshal Tito headed the Yugoslavian partisans. They were equal parts communist and Chetniks (pro-Royalists) but he had welded them together into a formidable fighting force at least on par with the French Resistance. He was also a very intelligent and politically savvy leader, who despised Stalin as nothing more than a murderous thug. He also heavily distrusted the West, primarily because of the failure of Britain and France to come to Poland's aid in time to stop Germany. He was also aware the plethora of confusing military alliances in the early 20th century had created the conditions for the first world war. Broz blocked every effort by Churchill to advance a Balkans invasion. Instead, he asked that all of the supplies meant for such an operation be sent to his partisans instead. The participation of French Resistance members had been crucial to the success of Overlord (and, later, Dragoon) and Yugoslavian locals would also have been needed for any Balkans operation. Allied forces in the West were at least familiar with the terrain and culture of Italy, France and even Germany. They had little to no knowledge of the Balkans and the lack of local support would have sent them in blind. Finally, hindsight is always 20/20. Churchill was correct, in theory, but was in no position to do anything about it. Postwar Britain was a mess, with sky-high inflation and food and fuel shortages. Even worse, she began to lose her vital colonies, with the worst hits being India and Singapore. Even worse, her Commonwealth nations, such as Australia and New Zealand, had pulled back from direct involvement in British political intrigue. Canada, which was Britain's most loyal ally outside of America, was so depleted after the war that it could not even meet the minimum military requirements to join NATO (American, Britain and France "loaned" her material so she could join in 1949). Fortunately, the Third World war that Churchill predicted (and that Patton actually called for) has not yet happened. Yes, life under Soviet rule was horrendous for Eastern Europe but one could argue that such fates had been brought upon those nations themselves. Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria joined the Axis in return for promises of reacquiring territory lost to Russia in preceding years. Even Czechoslovakia had provided large numbers of troops for foreign Waffen SS units. Apologies for the long-winded analysis.
That sounds impressive, given that there weren't too many amphibious landings total in the European theater during WWII. Your father would have had to have done all or almost all of them, it seems.
As always,a splendid video DARK DOCS .I didn't know that Churchill wanted to invade the balklands.Who actually knows what the outcome would have been.The allies at least had air support during this campaign,which is always crucial.
I didn’t even KNOW that the Churchill Balkan plan existed or that Dragoon could have been blamed for the Cold War. Must have slept through that class in high school. Hell, wonder if my cousins and I would have avoided service if our parents generation had won the Balkans and set up defenses. Thanks for this episode.
Invading the Balkans would probably not have prevented the Cold War. It would merely have improved the Anglo-American negotiating position with Stalin for the postwar division of Europe. The gargantuan Red Army would still have rolled over most of Eastern Europe and occupied what became East Germany. To prevent the Cold War, the western Allies would somehow have needed to defeat the Axis say in 1943 while the Germans were still deep in Soviet territory. That was essentially impossible, so it's hard to see how the outcome of WWII could have been much different. Churchill was probably just talking about having a few more territories outside the Iron Curtain. Really just nibbling around the edges rather than preventing the eventual standoff.
The mistake was allying with Stalin in the first place. Germany versus Russia was definitely a situation where we could easily have wished they both might lose.
@@M167A1 Easy to say now. In 1941 it was not so clear. Churchill's comment that he would not unsay anything he had said in the past, but “If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.” In the end the Cold War would never turn hot. And the USSR would come apart at the end of the 1980's. And, until the Alamogordo atomic bomb test was successful, there was every expectation the Red Army would be needed for the final phase of the war.
My cousin took part in 4 invasions before his 19th birthday as a member of the 3rd Division. By going around the Siegfried line the Army could have had even more success than they did if they had the political support.
The video was very interesting. Just wish you'd shown video of the B-26s. My father flew in one and took part in bombing in Southern France during the operation. From Aprill to that time he was based in Corsica. Eventually he was based in Toulon.
Good on your Dad & you. All 4 Uncles, 1 Aunt, & Dad served. 2 served in European Theater & the rest in Pacific. The 20th Century beat Fascism & Communism.
LOL! No, there is a limited amount of footage of Red Army troops, but mostly when the narrator is specifically addressing what was going on at the time on the Eastern front. There was one specific spot, around 8:30 where the footage didn't match the narrative
I disagree with the position of this filmmaker: that the wiser strategy would’ve been to attack through the Balkans. The invasion of Italy bogged down into a slow slugfest because of the many mountainous bottlenecks in the terrain. From what I can gather, Yugoslavia and Greece are worse. There would’ve been nothing like Patton’s mad dash across France to the Rhine. It might’ve been an invasion force bottled up like Anzio.
@@DimBeam1 Your reply was remarkably uninformative. Your handle implies that you believe that you’re not very bright or not very sober. Please provide facts and sources that will influence my position regarding war strategy and the qualities of Dim Beam. Your most humble servant, etc., etc.
It didn’t ruin the end of WW2 - I have wounder Ed in the past why the 2nd invasion in southern France happened instead of invading thru the Greece or Yugoslavia - which likely have ended the war faster since there was very little German forces in those areas allowing the Western Armies to reach Germany faster - but I recall reading that Roosevelt didn’t take Stalin as a serious foe after Germany was defeated. That was probably Roosevelt’s biggest strategic mistake during WW2. It certainly would have done better than the failed Market Garden operation - and likely would have prevented the German last offensive in the west - the Battle of the Bulge. Also it would have provided the western allies with airfields much closer to Germany than France - it would have give the battle against Germany a third front - ending WW2 much faster.
Not mentioned, Churchill always wanted to invade southeast Europe as he had done in WW1. (Remember Gallipoli? That failure was partly because of Churchill. He referred to it as the soft underbelly of Europe). WW2 Churchill was again promoting this strategy. Eisenhower opposed it because the terrain throughout Greece, Yugoslavia, etc. was similar to Italy; mountainous, trees, many rivers with bridges that could easily be destroyed. It was felt by Allied Command that any assault in that region would get bogged down the same as in Italy.
@@rabbit251 I couldn’t agree with you more. Churchill was the guy who dragged us into fighting in the mountains for Italy in a bloody war of attrition and stalemate. We would have fought until 1946 (when we could had dropped atomic bombs on Germany and forced them to surrender) and most of the folks that actually survived the Holocaust would have died in the camps. Churchill was not the best general, and his leadership would have resulted in a further stalemate as the U.S. was running out of replacements by the time of the Battle of the Bulge. The US was pulling rear echelon troops and cadets out of college and other programs to fill the need for replacements. A bloody fight in the mountains (again) would have been a disaster.
Mark Holm --- It didn’t ruin the end of WW2 - I have wounder Ed in the past why the 2nd invasion in southern France happened instead of invading thru the Greece or Yugoslavia - which likely have ended the war faster since there was very little German forces in those areas allowing the Western Armies to reach Germany faster - [....] Wayne Patterson --- At the time when the Allies were making decisions about the 1944 D-Day campaign planning and after the Italian surrender in 1943, the British were humiliatingly defeated by the Germans in the Dodecanese campaign 8 September to 22 November 1943. Furthermore, the Greeks at that point in time were busy expending more of their efforts to fighting each other than they were in fighting the Germans and Bulgarians. By the time of such a proposed campaign in late 1944 would have been conducted, the Soviets had already compelled the German Army Group E and Army Group F to conduct their withdrawals from Greece and other major areas of the Balkans. So, the such a proposed campaing was rendered moot anyway by the real world events. For those reasons and innumerable other reasons the proposals for an Anglo-American offensive campaign through the Balkans in 1944 was entirely unreasonable, unrealistic, and unnecessary to the point of being nonsensical. Without question doing so would have also had very serious and negative impacts upon the Anglo-American-Franco offensives in France and Germany in the period of July 1944 to May 1945. Mark Holm --- [...] but I recall reading that Roosevelt didn’t take Stalin as a serious foe after Germany was defeated. That was probably Roosevelt’s biggest strategic mistake during WW2. Wayne Patterson --- President Roosevelt died on 12 April 1945, so he was no longer the President and Commander-in-Chief after Germany surrendered. Before his death in April 1945 President Roosevelt recognized Stalin as a serious potential rival for the post-war era. That is why President Roosevelt envisioned the transformation of the wartime United Nations into a reorganized postwar United Nations with himself as its first leader. President Roosevelt also calculated the loss of the U.S. Lend Lease supplies after the surrender of Germany would compel the Soviet Union to demobilize most of its capacity to continue an offensive into Westeern Europe. Mark Holm --- [...] It certainly would have done better than the failed Market Garden operation - and likely would have prevented the German last offensive in the west - the Battle of the Bulge. Wayne Patterson --- On the contrary, the British failures to achieve the timely captures of Caan, Antwerp, Channel ports, and OPERATION MARKET-GARDEN along with the British defeat in the Dodecanese Campaign in 1943 demonstrated the essential need for the U.S. Sixth Army Group in OPERATION DRAGOON. The diversion of the U.S. Seventh Army into a futile offensive campaign in the Balkans would have required the U.S. Third Army to cover the front actually occupied by the U.S. Seventh Army and the Sixth Army Group. Doing so would have spread the denied the U.S. Third Army the ability to successfully defend against a German offensive along the front from Aachen to the Vosges Mountains and the border with Switzerland. The absence of OPERATION DRAGOON and the Sixth Army Group would have denied the Allies the critical line of communications and supply through the Rhone Valley to the borders of Germany and allowed the German Army Group G to outflank the Allied 21st Army Group from the south and east. Doing so would also allowed Germany to conduct further naval and air operations in the Mediterranean which OPERATION DRAGOON eliminated. The Allied lacked sufficient amphibious and merchant sealift capabilities to support another line of communications and supply for an army or army group through the Balkans. Mark Holm ---Also it would have provided the western allies with airfields much closer to Germany than France - it would have give the battle against Germany a third front - ending WW2 much faster. Wayne Patterson --- That comment is nonsense. Airfields in the lower Balkans are about two to six times more distant than from airfields located in Foggia, Italy; Britain, and France. Furthermore, the Allies did not have the additional sealift capacity to support a line of communications and supply from the U.S. to airfields located in the lower Balkans. Air raids against the POL targets at Ploesti, Romania were within reach from North Africa and Foggia, Italy. The third and fourth fronts in the balkans already existed with Allied assistance without diverting the U.S. Seventh Army to an unnecessary and futile mission in the Balkans.
@@johndilday1846 I hate to agree with you but you are totally right. My H.S. principal was only 17 and in 1944 he was in the Pacific working as a Seebee. We had to be digging the bottom of the barrel to have been doing that.
Sort of confused on the argument- not only were the Balkans hard to capture, and a difficult place to fight a war, but Yugoslavia was certainly no friend of the USSR, especially when Stalin was in charge.
At that time it was. Only after 47-48 were Yugoslav-Soviet political relations cut. Churchil was just an evil little man which just like the US and UK in general, wasn't considered friend in Yugoslavia. Both countries air forces terror bombed dozens of our cities and towns allegedly targeting Germans while effectively murdering local population. I have to admit that the Soviet Army significantly helped us to defeat Germans despite suffering their own casualties.
Soviet "hunger for new territories" is partly that, but also a plausible way to avoid yet another repeated attempt at their annihilation in the future.
Only that their rape of their half of Poland 1939 when they split it with the Nazis wasnt to "secure a buffer zone to prevent annihilation". They were too busy butchering Ukraine farmers to worrt about that.
@@andrewmcclure2905 The vid only brought out the "hunger for new territories regarding the USSR. It seems like you don't like rape and butchery coming from the USSR. Sure, me too, but your being choosy. It's a near universal in war.
You failed to list the US Airborne component of the operation. The First Airborne Task Force was not a singular British endeavor. It was commanded by the recently promoted Brig. General Robert Fredrick (the former commander of the FSSF), it included the following US combat forces; The 517th Parachute Regimental Combat Team, the 509th PIB, 550 GIB, and 551 PIB, as well as a slew of airborne artillery, mortar, engineer, and support units. The plan also included French Para's but thier participation was scrapped due to disagreements between Allied brass.
But the Politically Correct portion of the story would have been missing. He should have been complete in the details, but not cherry pick something for one community.
@@jerryking4710 My Father was an NCO in B Company of the 517th, I used to go to all the conventions and even Jumped with some of the men from the 517th during a Dragoon Anniversary jump.
Invading the Balkans would have been like invading Italy again and getting bogged down. Italy was held until the end as would have the Yugoslavian areas, yet Churchill had a habit of wanting to invade easily defensible areas (Like the Dardanelle's in WW1). Churchill was pugnacious/stubborn yet that does not save lives or win battles. Dragoon allowed a sweeping movement with German unit's retreating wholesale across the whole front up to the southern border areas of Germany in France. It was a crucial move and Eisenhower made commanders decision. (I'm no Eisenhower fan boy.)
I always wondered why there was no amphibious invasion of southern France.... which seemed a lot more sensible than the difficult slog up Italy Now, it turns out there WAS an invasion of southern France! I have never heard anything about this
Interesting video and interesting comments. My own armchair generalship would have supported the invasion of southern France. Churchill seemed obsessed with a southern strategy. He was a supporter of invading the Dardanelles in WWI which ended poorly. He also championed the invasion of Italy attacking the soft underbelly of Europe. The soft underbelly didn’t turn out so well as the numerous rivers and mountainous terrain were made for defence. Of course it might have gone better if Mark Clarke was not in charge of US forces. From what I’ve read the Balkans would have presented similar terrain challenges and more difficult logistics. Armchair General Chiller gonna side with FDR and Ike on this one.
Ancient History.....The Marxists slowly established themselves in DC thru the state department and worked via the department of education that was established later. The icing on the cake was the socialist destruction of the family unit under the guise of welfare. The department of health and human services facilitated getting dad's out of the picture. LBJ was proud of himself after he nailed that coffin shut.
Because you spoke condescendingly, you should know that Churchill was "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.". If you are going to be an a-hole and correct someone, you should probably check yourself...
The politics were brutal, the landing in southern France had just three US Divisions for the fighting of Germans. The French were used as occupational troops for the most part. The British and the Americans just kept beating their heads against the Siegfried line in the north, and the British kept telling Roosevelt and Ike to stop the supplies to southern France, which did happen for awhile. Very bitter infighting amongst the allies, Stalin wanted more supplies all the time.
Churchill was right. He was the only one to understand the threat of the soviet advance in central europe from a geopolitical perspective. He wanted a landing around Venice and Trieste and moving towards Vienna, Prague and Budapest. The Americans (FDR to be more specific), considered the Soviets as true allies. He had informed the Soviets about his intention to land in Trieste. Stalin convinced him that it was not necessary and that a landing in southern France would be better. Unfortunately for Europe, the americans had not understood by then what the Soviets wanted. George Kennan's "Long Telegram", will be sent in 1946....
I red that the Balkans would have been a difficult operation. The area was mountainous and had little infrastructure. It may have been a repeat of the Italian front.
One advantage is that they would have the ally of Tito's partisans, who were already giving the Nazis serious headaches. I wonder if the best plan would be skipping Italy altogether and going up through the Eastern/central Balkans. This could have been the best overall strategy to contain Stalin's territorial lust. There is no way he would have turned on the allies directly, he was too weakened and dependent on Lend Lease.
On furth2er thought...why not make the main assault on poorly defended South France instead of Normandy? Bonus is you get to bypass the nasty bocage that killed thousands of our boys.
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 I guess they wanted a quick road to Germany. There's also the air bases in the UK and the shorter supply roads. That's how I see it anyway.
@@mathieugariepy2948 In my 20/20 hindsight version, we skip Italy altogether (maybe take Sicily) as it has no strategic value and is horrible terrain for attack; instead we head through the Balkans more or less in synch with an invasion of South France. All of this could be done by late '43 (weather not an issue even in winter), and the path from Marseille/Toulon to the Rhine is far easier than from Normandy. Berlin would be in peril from three directions instead of two, and the human rights bonus of Allies securing E. Europe would be invaluable (we would still have to concede a buffer zone to Stalin, just not the entirety of E Europe). Churchill would lose his hobby horse of Italy (the "Soft Underbelly of Europe"...NOT!) but gain the Balkans where he wanted to foil Stalin's plans.
In his bestselling memoir Wedemeyer Reports! (New York: Holt,1959), General Albert C. Wedemeyer wrote that the landings in southern France were essential to shore up the right flank of the armies advancing eastward from Normandy.
Churchill's obsession with the Mediterranean was not one of his positive aspects. He constantly underestimated the difficulty of the terrain and the ability of a defending force to make life miserable for an attacking army. He was absolutely right about the Soviets becoming an enemy after the war, and how they would dominate Eastern Europe, but the Balkans would have been another cul de sac of a front. Geopolitics is a real concern in any war, but you fight and win the battles on actual terrain, and what might be desirable from a political aspect rarely precisely coincides with the ground over which victory can be achieved. The presence of an Anglo-American army on the plains of Northwest Europe meant the Axis was doomed, however long it took to finish the business. I get tired of people who harp on how the Allies 'allowed' the Soviets to overrun Eastern Europe. There was not much we could do about it, if we wanted to win the war before 1948. A sad 'geopolitical' truth, especially for Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians....
The Balkans invasion was a political move. Churchill wanted a say in the peace negotiations; Eisenhower wanted to conclude the war with fewer casualties.
Just a note here. This operation did not land in a place relevant for the Atlantic Wall, it happened in the Mideterranian. The defences there were called the Souther Wall...because...you know, not the Altantic Sea...
That was my father's seventh and last landing. His eight was supposed to be honshu but Col. Tibbets made that unnecessary. Why do you show so much soviet film mixed in? T 34s and papashas are blatantly obvious in the films.
Remember that these videos (literally almost all on RUclips) are produced quick and dirty, on a minimal budget. They snag any even remotely royalty free non copyrighted media on the net to illustrate their point and add entertainment value to us cheap viewers watching for free. Like it, great, don’t, well unsubscribe. But expecting top quality from a one man operation trying to churn out a volume of videos to make a buck. Keep in mind too that if every one of his subscribers watched this video AND watched the ads he might make $20. The never happens as we all skip the videos, bringing down the average revenue for a channel of 100,000 subscribers $13 per video over its lifetime. That’s why many channels have 3 to 10 different channels and try and produce a video each per day (they usually have 2 or 3 people).
@@Erin-Thor Okay. He had part of it right, especially showing my old man's boat and other allied men and equipment. The soviet stuff was just incorrect. I was trying to point out how to make it better quality. I'm a believer in take the time to do things right. Since I used to design and build bridges be glad that they are extra strong. Good Luck, Rick
@@richardross7219 - I agree with you completely. I’ve followed a few “behind the scenes” videos of channels making videos like these. There’s a lot less thought that goes into them than we might think. One point they make is that RUclips has drastically cut what channels earn. Originally a channel with 100k subs making a video a day could make about 70k annually, now that same model earns a few thousand. Which is why so many channels have multiple channels, produce similar videos, and production values have dropped.
Always forgotten : 2 U.S aircraft carriers ( with Hellcats of VF-74 and VOF - 1 ) for the operation Dragoon...U.S.S Kasaan Bay and U.S.S Tulagi under command of C.A Calvin Thornton Durgin.
I like the way he speaks, it's unusual and different. It implies a sense or urgency, which seems to me to be appropriate considering the subject matter.
I met some people in Perpignan who insisted that the southern landings were bad for them as German troops retreated South West towards the Pyranees. Whether they were having an easy "Vichy" time of it until then I do not know but there was moderate to heavy fighting in border towns with Spain. I was also told that American offices had an arrangement with the Spanish in border crossings at Cerbere to vet German troops entering Port Bou. The rumour was that the Yanks allowed disarmed regular wermacht to escape unarmed as they hunted and weeded out SS and war criminals.
Sibole Staline well sometimes when you take out the fanatics everything falls into place. They are the head of the snake... Sometimes. Idk if that would work for the Germans. They are a proud people.
Okay, so in 1944, despite Allied strategic bombing, the German economy was put on a proper "war economy" as a result of the German "Total War" campaign; and during that time, German industry outproduced previous years--by a significant margin. So, it isn't exactly fair to say that German industry had been 'crippled;' Germany's problem were three fold: 1. despite the success of Speer in increasing German military production in 1944, Germany and Japan were at war with 2/3rds of the total industrial capacity then present on the earth. This meant that increases in German industrial output, the Axis powers were so completely outproduced that this increase in output had a very minimal affect on the war; 2. The German shortage of fuel starting with the invasion of the Soviet Union (whom they had been precuring fuel oil from prior to June of 1941) were well known. By 1944 the Allied campaign in Italy had put Germany's last remaining source of oil--the Romanian oil fields--in easy range of Allied strategic bombing. At the end of the day, this further stressed German industry *and* the German military. The Wehrmacht did not have the fuel to use the armored fighting vehicles being produced to their fullest potential; 3. Germany by the summer of 1944 was suffering from *severe* manpower shortages, and the Soviets were at this point winning so decisively that all the able bodied German men available were being sent East. So, as you point out, the Atlantic wall, not just in southern France, was largely protected by soldiers recruited from former Soviet territories, old reservists, and Germans who had been wounded so severely at one point or another that they were not fit for 'frontline' service; and as an honorable mention 4. While German weapons of war, like tanks and jet aircraft, were in fact very good they were not very efficient to produce--for example German tanks did not have a universal set of parts they all shared. This further exacerbated the problems inherent in German industrial output, so while the Germans produced 18,956 armored fighting vehicles in 1944, the Allies produced: a. Soviet Union: 28,525 b. United States: 21,267 c. United Kingdom: 6,000
Shame the narrator has to stumble over his words, the history is important, the content well presented, why rush the information, it needs to be absorbed. Thanks
Too nice historic video showing and clear explaining of events and ,behind reasons which encourages allies were doing it against axis including political and conversations among allies
There's alot about Churchill that I don't like, but he was a crafty old bugger. He had a point on this matter. Delicate international relations among the big three Allies were a changing high wire act throughout the war. From a threatened mutiny among ETO American officers against Eisenhower if he didn't stop cow towing to the British, to FDR seemingly slighting Churchill for a possibly favorable post war relationship with Stalin, it was complicated.
@Edgar Miller Don't know anything about that, but it was obvious that the Soviets where going to finish the war in a very powerful position. Indeed, Stalin kept something like 72 Red Army divisions activated post war, most were armored and mechanized. The Capitalistic Western powers didn't want to pay to keep large military formations in play so they relied on the Atom bomb monopoly till 1949 when they learned that the Soviets had achieved the bomb.
@lati long I understand though. History must be viewed as based on what people knew at the time. Market garden seemed like a good idea until it failed.
Even at this early date Cold. War strategies were being made . In no way did we want the French to be sympathetic to the Russians. Both the French and the Americans were bound by their help in breaking away from England . The Americans remained grateful to them !
I like your channel and am a subscriber but sometimes your background videos do not match your commentary. As an example just after the intro when you are talking about operation Anvil you are showing marines landing in the Pacific.
This operation was a success it didn't ruin shyt.They suffered less than 400 casualties when landing and the overall operation ended a month ahead of time. It got free French Forces involved in taking back their own country.
Montgomery and Eisenhower were essentially political representatives, and Patton was more like Attila the Hun. Patton should have been in charge. He was the best our side had.
this has inaccuracies in it. the actual truth is that the US wanted to have a dual landings in france rather then invading italy from the start. the italy invasion was churchills idea the US didnt want to do it. churchill mentioned AFTER we invade sicily then move onto invade the balkans.(this was so to secure the british empire's lands and not push the nazi's out of power. this showed just how poor churchill was at planning anything other then how much booze he would guzzle that day. in doing this it would have delayed the invasion of france by at least a year which would have led to the soviet union taking complete control of germany.
Churchill viewed Europe as British sphere of influence. He needed American wealth and manpower to keep it. Thank God for Eisenhower,Marshall and King. The british citizens fired him after the German surrender. The high human cost of empire was too much. They did not want him playing chess with their lives anymore.
The French Army was never going to fight in the Balkans. The allies needed the ports of Toulouse and Marsalles to handle large supply requirements. The US had rebuilt the French rail system from Marsalles to support supply of US troops in WWI, supply could be provided for us and French forces on right flank for invasion of Germany. Churchill was utterly wrong about collapse of German resistance in France after Dragoon. Dragoon was probably the most successful invasion of Europe by the allies.
It was the better choice to consolidate the liberation of France, especially with free French forces contributing to it. The forced retreat and abandonment of France by German occupation forces were successfully secured this way. A new front in the Balkans would have provoked a discord with Russian forces and perhaps even the loss of a coordinated ally. More importantly the focus of allied resources was on WWII and the defeat of Hitler and Japan, a huge task enough and not looking for WWIII and eternal war thereafter. I continually find reason to admire Eisenhower’s wisdom on many big decision occasions.
I dont think the American public was ready for a potential war with the Soviet Union. We still had a Japan fighting us in every more desperate measures. The American people wanted the war over. If they woke up to find we were fighting the Soviet Union in the winter of 45 it would had been a real problem. With that said WWII failed to free people from Eastern Europe from totalitarianism.
Churchill was right about Stalin, but he forgot the old maxim of war -- "Never start the next war before you finish the first one." Hitler made that mistake when he invaded the Soviet Union before finishing off the British and the Free French. Had Alllied forces invaded the Balkans, they may well have secured Eastern European territory before Stalin's forces did, but it would have greatly prolonged the fighting in Western Europe, leading to greater casualties, a factor greatly affecting morale among the American and British peoples by the summer of 1944.
Given that the Balkans effectively liberated themselves, it's entirely possible US/UK operations in the Balkans would've still resulted in a Tito led Yugoslavia, outright prevented their advance into Germany, and soured relations with the French. Nothing's a sure thing in war.
I notice in the whole commentary that the intransigence of the Vichy French was ignored. Personalities played a big part in the lead up to the invasion and although in the end, it did go fairly smoothly, an embarrassing situation of Allies actually ending up fighting French troops, was very narrowly avoided by frantic diplomacy behind the scenes.
Vichy France had been more or less dissolved by 1944. Germany moved in to occupy Southern France in 1942, after the Allied landings in North Africa. Granted, there was significant collaboration among the population of France up to liberation (and they were dealt with), but the actual government had been moved into exile by the time of Dragoon.
Great documentary, but it might be worth trying to slow down your narration. It sounds like you’re rushing each line then taking a few seconds to catch your breath.
The advance north has been largely ignored by historians, as was the contribution by 6th Army Group. This may outlay have to do with the clashes between Devers and Eisenhower. In an almost Soviet way. Devers has been air-brushed out of history despite his high rank and the accomplishments of his forces.
I dunno? As an American it’s a tough choice of who I distrust more the British or the Russians. I think I would choose the Russians to ally with? Tough call!
1:56) Italy's invasion was another bright idea of Churchill's that turned out to be very dim. Operation Market & Operation Garden were his. Denmark is another.
![Megan Thee Stallion - Neva Play (feat. RM) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/TpYTyAaTRts/mqdefault.jpg)
Merry Christmas to everyone at the Dark channels. ❤
Thank you and Merry Christmas to you.
Merry Christmas and Happy holidays to you too
👽
I think I’m okay
Marry Christmas 🎄☃️ Happy New year!
During this D-Day My Father was a member of the 517th Parachute Infantry Regiment (AKA 517th Parachute Regimental Combat Team with the addition of the 460th Parachute Field Artillery Battalion and the 596th Airborne Engineer Company) which was part of the 1st Airborne Taskforce which provided the Airborne slice of operation Dragoon ("The Champagne Campaign"")
Been reading WWII history since 1970s. Always amazes me how the Allies were able to conduct the Normandy landings in June 1944; the invasions of Saipan, Guam, & Tinian in July 1944; and the Southern France invasion in August 1944. The logistics are just mind-boggling!!
Have to remember how many in the military are involved in logistics and not triggers
With all due respect to frontline soldiers, logistics wins wars. You can't shoot a gun if it's out of ammo.
All true but regarding the Balkens the British appeared to be in denial about how hard it was going to be to get past German defended mountain passes. They appear to have learned nothing from the challenges of Monte Casino.
They learned that if something's too heavily defended to take without unacceptable losses, you send in the Canadians.
Correct. They would not have gotten anywhere, despite it being the only way to stop Stalin. Historically all wars in the Balkans have been difficult and in hindsight the decisions at the western Allies made were correct. Churchill was gifted for being able to foresee the broad strokes of the political future and he was trying to fight today's and tomorrow's war today. America fought today's war today and tomorrow's war tomorrow and won. Classic American doctrine since isolationism. It works well for them, but it's a messy strategy that results in much hardship, such as Eastern Europe being behind the curtain for half a century.
Perhaps Roosevelt was not taken in by Stalin's charm as history writes and laid Eastern Europe open as a bribe for Stalin to push to Berlin as fast as possible, which is exactly what the western Allies needed. After all Roosevelt had the Manhattan Project and who knows how his thoughts about how to deal with Stalin were influenced by that knowledge.
The 20th century was FUBAR.
@@hamletksquid2702 No. You're forgetting an important constituent in warfare-timetables. It doesn't matter if the Canadians went in the Germans would have slowed them down and inflicted serious casualties. After D-Day, it was all about timetables and capturing as much territory as possible.
@@hamletksquid2702 The american general's were right it would be like his other bloodbath blunder of his Gallipoli campaign all over again .
Or from Tito s operations...
There are a few issues with landing in the balkans (or IIRC the specific area Churchill wanted to land was the northern coast of Croatia, then head inland towards Liubjiana, Slovenia):
A) the ports in the area aren’t especially great like the ones at Marseille and Toulon. Off the top of my head the closest decent port is Trieste, with Venice some kilometers away and Split if they wanted to land further south.
B) The terrain here is incredibly mountainous, and during WW1 the front int this general area between Italy and Austria-Hungary barely moved at all. Even if they tried to go around the alps and snake through Hungary, Slovakia and Czechia there’s still the Sudetes to get over to get to Berlin before the Reds.
So my guess is it probably wouldn’t make much of a difference.
The Balkans could have easily become a second 'Italy', with fighting bogged down in mountainous terrain...
Remember, the Nazis had conquered the Balkans in a month in 1941, & they were spread very thin in 1944. A well-planned, organized & supplied attack would’ve had the same results the Germans had in 1944.
A very large reason for the allied problems in Italy was the “beached whale” at Anzio that gave Kesselring time to bring up forces and create a stalemate that lasted almost 5 months, while organizing defensive lines across Italy.
And do not forget Tito's communist partisans, they would have claimed most of Yugoslavia anyways, and Tito was behind the later brutal civil war between the Greek communists and the anti-communist Gov't forces. And Austria was later agreed to be a nuetral state. Lastly the big 3 aready had agreed to Stalin gaining land, he would have seen it as a betrayal.
I’ve driven from Divulje barracks near Split up to Banja Luka and the narrow road winding up and over the mountains would be horrific to fight over. A painful advance slowed at every bend or bridge over the rivers by mines, AT guns and ambushes whilst your arty can’t give indirect fire is a nightmarish scenario.
North of Bosnia into Croatia it resembled more like Germany with rolling countryside to manoeuvre in.
Dragoon was best option due to supply. Normandy beaches couldn’t supply fully as it was, Norway, Balkans or Italy were mountainous.
Lucas Therrien Thank you 🙏 for your explanation it really answers the question WTF WAS Churchill's plan in the first place?? AND WHERE in the balkans ??
After participating in the landings at Anzio and fighting through Italy, my grandfather was recalled and then participated in Operation Dragoon when he landed in a glider in Southern France. Thanks for doing the video about this!
My father was there too and at anzio. He was on the outskirts of Rome when he was pulled and readied for southern France. Was your grandfather a paratrooper or other. Do you know what division he was with. My dad was with the 45th
@@jeffmiller1159 My grandfather was also with the 45th Infantry Div. I don't think he was a paratrooper but he did land in a glider near Champagne France. He also went on to liberate Dachau. My grandfather's brother (my great uncle) was also in the division with him.
@@bigbillyb0b that gives me chills. No there weren't any paratroopers in the 45th that I know of. I also didn't know that they sent gliders in with regular troops. Dad was at Dachau also. His MP group was brought in immediately upon discovery to allow the front line units to advance. He said there was a bad juju in that place and some horrible things. Did he ever tell you about it,? Dad had in his medals two arrowheads which were for the established beachheads at Anzio and southern France
some maps would help out these videos alot instead of random ww2 footage
Yes, I'd rather see where everything happened than uninformative and largely unrelated footage.
A relevant visual aid would help, but this is kinda what people mean when they say Americans are stupid. And they're generally not wrong.
@@salvadordollyparton666 bruh
👍
@@salvadordollyparton666 Bruh
The citizens of Eastern Europe since then felt abandoned by the Americans and British, and left them to suffer and die under Stalin. General Patton was disgusted by the bowing to Stalin. The Russians would never get back to Germany without "Made in the USA" equipment. That should have been enough. But stopping Patton from entering Berlin and quickly go further was a massive mistake. A mistake that was repeated by Truman in Korea.
History screams,........"Patton was right!"
I very much appreciate that there are no intros or title cards to these videos. Right to the point. Thanks for that.
Churchill and Patton both spoke the truth
Speaking the truth makes you enemies.
@@jimdavis8391 yes it does that’s why they arkansided Patton
@@sithlordjeffbledsoe651 They gave him a "Clinton-Style" Treatment!
Can you imagine if there decide to turn Russia after WW2 cold war might not have happened !
They both wanted to fight a war they would not have won. And they would have been risking whatever was left of democracy in North America and the UK to do it. The British people knew perfectly well what they were doing when they threw out Churchill from office barely two months after VE Day. As for Patton, if you're all for handing your life over to a grandiose narcissist, be my guest. Just don't take anyone else with you.
Sure to spur some debate!
Dragoon is seriously underrated
Terrain was mountainous and bad for tanks. The balkans appears simple looking ar maps. Quagmire of no maneuver space, languages, logistics
Churchill largely caused the cold war so it's later existence does not support Churchill's desire to cause it sooner, when it could have been mostly avoided with diplomacy had Churchill himself not instigated it.
Generally speaking, people don’t like to be wrong. People especially don’t like to be proven wrong. Taking an objective look at operation dragoon proved a lot of high-ranking officials got it wrong while the grumpy old man got it right and history has vindicated Winston Churchill. Regardless, communism and the great experiment eventually failed the Berlin wall fell large swaths of Eastern Europe eventually shook off the communist yolk and instead of ruling over a vast reaching widespread empire Vladimir Putin is more concerned with launching cyber attacks, thumbing his nose at American presidents, and generally wishing he was as powerful as Stalin once was.
@@alan6832 I don't think Churchill caused the cold war, I think that blame can be caused by inflated egos of the Allied states.
The cold war could have been avoided had Germany been more successful on the eastern front and taken Moscow, and then let Patton take care of Berlin.
Only one battleship remains from operation dragoon. USS Texas, a WW1 veteran remaining in service through WW2. It’s located in Houston, Texas
She's a beauty to be sure.
Ultimately, FDR was correct. We won the Cold War, minimal casualties, Korea and Vietnam not withstanding, and simply outspent the USSR. The Balkans would have been a quagmire very far from supply, surrounded by potentially two enemy groups (German and now Russian because we pissed them off) and trapped as in Gallipoli, Churchill's first mistake. Italy was touted by Churchill as the "soft underbelly" but that wasn't the case. It was a virtually stagnant killing and proving ground, nothing more. Churchill seemed to be obsessed with the grand flanking maneuver that was not practical.
Victory in the Cold War wasn't even as close to obvious as it is now. As late as in the 70s many Western economists believed that the USSR would surpass the US economically. Were they victims of Soviet propaganda or cryptocommies? I have no idea. All i know is we should have nuked Moscow as planned in Operation Unthinkable
You do realize how one computer error in 83’ almost caused said Nuclear War right?
For all of his brilliance, Churchill was blinded by the Balkans. The terrain was terrible, the people were horribly divided, and it would have ended up as a major drain of resources. In the end it would have ended up most likely as a Vietnam situation in Eastern Europe as the strongest faction was the Communist under Tito.
wrong
Churchill had a lot of ideas that seemed good on paper but when exposed to reality didn't quite seem as rosy as he'd imagined. I honestly feel like invading the Balkans was one of them, considering the mountainous terrain, the weird political situation there, the fewer available landing beaches.
I agree and why in ww1 he botched it also. People tend to forget that. He sure wasn't a great planner a better front man to bring the country together that's all
Yes, a campaign in the balkans would have been risky, and could end up to be another Italy. Thats another front that would have been static, with only a handfull of germans divisions needed for defense
Japanese American 'Nisei' are part of the Operation Anvil that fought in south France. The purple heart 442nd Infantry Regiment.
So what? Why is this kind of racism acceptable? IT IS RACISM. They were simply AMERICANS like millions of others of all colors. Democrats have always been the racists and put Japanese families into PRISON CAMPS because of skin color as they Project about everyone elses racism.
@@mitch_the_-itch No, Japanese were put into camps because we were at war with Japan and their loyalty could not be assured, especially when we were losing. was there racism involved? Of course, America was a very racist country at the time. It was still a prudent, reasonable, and constitutional war measure. The fact that Japanese men were permitted to serve in the armed forces, and that all the camps were closed down and the internees released in 1943, shows that racism was not the primary factor involved in the policy.
Racism was also not the reason that the Japanese servicemen were no allowed to serve in the Pacific theater. It was well understood that if they were ever to be captured they would face the most horrific treatment from Japanese forces. First generation German personnel were kept out of the European theater for the same reason.
Fun Fact: Adolf Hitler's nephew, William Patrick Hitler, served in the United States Navy during the war.
@@odysseusrex5908 FDR and the racist Democrat imprisoned an entire group of people unconstitutionally because of their skin color, AGAIN, lol. RACISM plain and simple. You can make any excuse you want for it, lol. Not a new behavior from Democrats and as white men know in 2021 it will continue.
@@mitch_the_-itch - If you go far enough back in time, nearly everybody was racist. But people evolve - try to keep up. For example, during the 1960s and 1970s, the "Southern Strategy" of Nixon and other Republican elites resulted in most white racist Democrats switching to the Republican party, particularly in the southern states. This political alignment continues today, with the formerly Democratic-voting south voting Republican for decades. Today African American voters vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, typically in the 90% or higher range. AAs are one of the most reliable Democratic voting blocs. Please explain what qualifies you to detect racism against African Americans better than African Americans themselves can detect. Do you also believe that Noah's Ark is literally real, and that Trump was cheated out of his election landslide win by Hugo Chavez from beyond the grave?
@@danielmocsny5066 The Southern Strategy was complete bullshit made up by the real Racists of the Democrat Party that were simply PROJECTING away their own sin. Democrats created the KKK, DUH. "BUT BUT BUT THE PARTYS SWITCHED OR SOMETHING." LOL. Today the Democrat Party is still the Party of Racism. Simply listen to them spew racism every single day. You silly indoctrainted racists are the problem, not the solution.
The next time Democrats lose a Civil War we arent going to be so nice to you Communist anti Americans.
Knowing the Germans were fighting tooth & nail to hold Italy, the Allies should have staged invasions in southern France and the Balkans. That way the Italian front would have been cut off completely, then they could have rolled up to Berlin, and kept on trucking to the Russian border.
How would Italy have been cut off?
Have you ever looked at a map of Europe?
It's South of Switzerland which wasn't fully neutral, they allowed Nazi supply and troop trains to run through and it (Italy) is also South West of Austria, which was part of the Nazi German Reich at the time.
@@GazB85 yeah i dont get it either. Maybe He means surrounded on two fronts sort of like they were in real life with russians attacking from the east and allies from the West.
@@GazB85 No, Switzerland wasn’t part of the 3rd Reich !!!
THEY SHOULD HAVE USED YHE ATOMOC BOMB ON THE SOVIETS WHEN THEY HAD THE TIME TO DO SO
@@JoJo-vm8vk Yeah, I made that mistake cause I was editing the messaging before posting.
I'll Re-edit it now.
When talking about Operation Dragoon, it's usually forgotten to mention the Allies' forecasts of their progress. They planned to be at the level of Lyon around All Saints' Day: whether they were below or above Lyon, they did not specify... However, less than a month after the landing, they were at the foot of the Vosges! (Cavalaire - Lyon: more than 400 km; Lyon - the Vosges: more than 300 km) Already after Operation Overlord, after which there had been a rather slow progression at the begining, there had been major logistical problems: all the more so for the operation Dragoon, which was like a blitzkrieg. The Allies were therefore forced to stop in mid-September, about 30 km from Belfort, which opened the way to Alsace and the Rhine. The offensive resumed about two months later; and hardly anyone knows that French troops on this occasion bypassed Belfort along the Swiss border and reached the Rhine without the furious German counterattacks ever cutting them off from their rear.
Awesome minidoc, ty! You should put more blips of maps when mentioning key areas, to help people have a better mental picture.. They don't have to be long - just 3 seconds or so; if anyone cares to see them longer they could pause
I didn't realize so many Red Army troops participated in operation Dragoon
I'm used to millennials using ANY wartime footage on their channel, BUT when we got the same Russian soldier holding his PPSh and looking at the camera, for the THIRD time??? I knew they were just LAZY. After the PPSh man we have a russian cameraman filming Berlin and a soldier holding a RED Flag, recognizable even in black and white. In the FUTURE Dark Docs should show GENERIC film for each combatant. Japan will be BANZAI soldiers after Singapore fall. England will be scrambling pilots for Battle of Britain. Russia will be soldiers storming Berlin Chancellory building. USA will be raising FLAG at IWO JIMA. France will be SURRENDER in Compiegne railway car. These pieces of film will BEST describe each country's EFFORT in WWII
Not to mention the US Marine Corps (1:48)
@@leofischer9842 Don't ask so much. He's still learning speech.
Yeah, and I thought that Blaskowitz was on Allied side.
@@augustlandmesser1520 ahaha i get the refrence
My father was a sailor on an LST at Dragoon
My grandads brother landed off one of those .
@@hellavadeal Thank you for your grandads service never forget.
My great grandma was almost taken to Nazi concentration camps, she fortunately escaped to the Dutch East Indies, its where i lived now.
That sounds like a drug and a music festival 😎
@@darryl635 Arrrrr ☠
My uncle was an US MP attached to Free French troops and in charge of captured prisoners. He was attacked and badly beaten by POW’s. On the way to the aid station near St Maxime, the jeep ran over a mine. Of the four men in the jeep, two died. He survived, although, he was paralyzed for the remainder of his life.
As with many others my Grandfather was part of this. We almost lost him. He was wounded and taken prisoner by the Germans. Him and one of his friends were forced to carry dead bodies by the Germans after he recovered. We never got much out of him concerning his captivity. I worked with him as a teen growing up so I might have gotten the most from him. They often traded Red Cross cigarettes for food from the Germans. I think he pitied them (The Germans) for how they had been brainwashed. The Germans knew what was happening in the Jewish camps. He is pictured in a book along with other freed prisoners of that particular camp and other camps. "The Greatest Generation". Ultimately the ordeal shortened his life. He died at the age of 59. I still try to recall all our conversations. I am 57 now.
After the mess that was Market Garden, I'd be wary trusting Churchill's judgement...
Agree partially, but I’d say more of the blame lies with Montgomery and his Hubris.. Ultimately Churchill and SHAEF can only go by his judgement on that particular operation. And boy was it a shit show
If the Soviets had lost millions upon millions of casualties, lost their greatest source of grain due to invasion/scorched earth withdrawal tactics, relocated their heavy industry east of the Urals, and gone deeply into debt due to foreign aid...and then had nothing to show for it by the end of the war, there would certainly have been long-festering resentment that would have eclipsed what actually went down during the Cold War in our timeline. Don't get it twisted...I strongly disapprove of the Soviets dominating Eastern Europe after the war, but we have to consider how they would have felt, being shut out of any kind of meaningful gains after taking such devastating losses. Think about what happened in Germany during the interwar years. I regret what happened in Eastern Europe after the war, but things might have gone much worse if an economically stagnant, pissed off Soviet Union spent the next decade or two brooding over the loss of land they felt was rightfully theirs.
Man whoever has been writing these lately needs to step their game up. I can actually see a difference in quality.
Elaborate?
Operation Dragoon was exclusively a U.S., U.K. and French operation. What's with all the replay footage of Soviet troops from Eastern Front battles?
Did you not listen to /Watch the video??? they were there to illustrate the concerns Churchill's concern about soviet dominance.
Yes I noticed that. A poor video that just depicts training is bad enough but taking scenes from Sebastopol to describe Toulon is rotten.
@@michaelshore2300 The subject matter touched on Churchill's wish for a 3rd front in the Balkans. There was never a U.S., British, French push in the Balkans or Eastern Euro countries, therefore, the video footage of eastern front battles used when describing western front battles should not have been used (and it was done twice in this video). An obvious case of lazy editing.
I watched for that. In most of the places in the video where there are Red Army troops shown is when the narrator is specifically talking about actions on the Eastern front. There WAS a glitch somewhere at the 8:30 mark where he did goof. At the end, he did show Russians in Berlin, but that was in the context of the war coming to an end.
Audie Murphy was there with the 3rd Division when they’d landed near Ramatuelle where he lost his best friend from machine gun fire.
My dad was a combat vet with the 3rd infantry division in this operation. He almost never talked about the war. He lied about his age at 16 to join the army after pearl harbor.
Just to leave a comment to let you know I truly enjoy your films/videos showing my age
Dan, I think we made a wrong turn around those islands...
Did it get a lil screwy near St. Louis?
No it was that left turn at Albuquerque. At least according to a certain wascally wabbit
👽
I think we made the right choice, considering we live in the future. How does it feel to be a time traveler?
Upon further research on this topic, there are several problems with Churchill's call for a Balkans invasion:
1) The German army in Italy, under the masterful hand of Field Marshal Albert Kesselring, had not capitulated and would not until three days before the formal end of the war with Germany. He guarded the Italian Alps specifically to prevent the Allies from either invading Germany directly through the Alps or by flanking his lines from the East.
2) To invade the Balkans, the Allies needed to control the North Adriatic Sea. Germany denied them access until the last of its retreating units surrendered on May 4, 1945. The Kriegsmarine, depleted as it was, still harassed British and Free French naval operations and sowed thousands of mines all across the North Adriatic. British minesweeping operations continued for weeks after the war ended. Also, the Germans blocked all available ports and canals in the area, meaning Allied troops in the Balkans would have to be supplied by air.
3) Allied progress in Italy. Though steady, Allied troops made slow progress up the Italian peninsula. Britain had withdrawn most of the 8th Army for Overlord, leaving behind Commonwealth troops, primarily from India, Australia, New Zealand, and various African colonies to carry on the fight. Those nations had signed on to ultimately take the fight to Germany but not to conduct political side operations. Fighting through the Balkans would likely have been worse than the conditions at Monte Cassino.
4) American strength. American planners had assembled almost 50 additional infantry divisions to send to France to exploit the successes of Overlord. A Balkans operation would have required diverting at least half of them to the Adriatic. To make up for the diversion of those divisions likely would have meant taking troops away from the Pacific, where American forces now approached Japan's inner defense ring, which had larger targets (like the Philippines and Okinawa) that would need Army troops to take and hold. Also, those fresh troops had little to no combat experience. Combat vets not only from the U.S. 7th Army but from France as well would have to be redirected. That would hurt the Overlord operation.
5) British weakness. By 1944, the bulk of Britain's best troops were committed to Overlord or to the Burma operations in the Pacific. The Brits did not possess the troop strength to participate in the Balkans in any meaningful way. It is telling the Churchill did not aggressively push for his Balkans plan until American forces had entered the theater in large numbers. One can only imagine the political fallout from creating a plan that depended on Americans doing most of the fighting in an area no one but Churchill really had an interest in.
6) Potential post-war exhaustion. Churchill was thinking ahead and was right about the coming Cold War. However, the West was nearing exhaustion. Back in America, extra efforts were needed to keep up morale and continue selling war bonds to fund the war. American leaders had specifically created the goal of ending the war by Christmas 1944 to boost morale at home. That said, military and civilian planners had set out to help administer and rebuild war-torn nations as they were liberated or captured. Their efforts had always been on Western Europe and Germany. A Balkans operation would have almost doubled the supplies and personnel necessary to effectively govern the area and, by extension, keep a lid on the ethnic tensions that had only been handled by brutal strongmen for centuries (Ottomans, Austro-Hungarian Empire, etc.).As later shown shortly after the final peace with Germany, Americans were overwhelmingly in favor of getting their troops back home and it proved a struggle to retain the men and equipment necessary to handle post-war Europe and Japan. One simply could not ask these brave men and women to then face off against the Soviets.
7) Cross Purposes. Essentially, diverting the men and material necessary for a Balkans campaign, including occupation troops for the region would likely have backfired. It would have meant fewer troops and supplies for the Overlord operation. The supply problem would have become crippling, thus prolonging the war on the western front. It still would have allowed the Soviets to reach Berlin first and maybe even further to the Rhine. It also might have allowed the Soviets to take Norway and Sweden, to prevent the West from blocking access to the Atlantic. The West might have saved the likes of Romania but could have had a Russian satellite nation right on the border of France and Italy, and well within spitting distance of Great Britain. That actually might have made for an even more intense Cold War.
8) And, most important, Josip Broz. The man later known as Marshal Tito headed the Yugoslavian partisans. They were equal parts communist and Chetniks (pro-Royalists) but he had welded them together into a formidable fighting force at least on par with the French Resistance. He was also a very intelligent and politically savvy leader, who despised Stalin as nothing more than a murderous thug. He also heavily distrusted the West, primarily because of the failure of Britain and France to come to Poland's aid in time to stop Germany. He was also aware the plethora of confusing military alliances in the early 20th century had created the conditions for the first world war.
Broz blocked every effort by Churchill to advance a Balkans invasion. Instead, he asked that all of the supplies meant for such an operation be sent to his partisans instead. The participation of French Resistance members had been crucial to the success of Overlord (and, later, Dragoon) and Yugoslavian locals would also have been needed for any Balkans operation. Allied forces in the West were at least familiar with the terrain and culture of Italy, France and even Germany. They had little to no knowledge of the Balkans and the lack of local support would have sent them in blind.
Finally, hindsight is always 20/20. Churchill was correct, in theory, but was in no position to do anything about it. Postwar Britain was a mess, with sky-high inflation and food and fuel shortages. Even worse, she began to lose her vital colonies, with the worst hits being India and Singapore. Even worse, her Commonwealth nations, such as Australia and New Zealand, had pulled back from direct involvement in British political intrigue. Canada, which was Britain's most loyal ally outside of America, was so depleted after the war that it could not even meet the minimum military requirements to join NATO (American, Britain and France "loaned" her material so she could join in 1949).
Fortunately, the Third World war that Churchill predicted (and that Patton actually called for) has not yet happened. Yes, life under Soviet rule was horrendous for Eastern Europe but one could argue that such fates had been brought upon those nations themselves. Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria joined the Axis in return for promises of reacquiring territory lost to Russia in preceding years. Even Czechoslovakia had provided large numbers of troops for foreign Waffen SS units.
Apologies for the long-winded analysis.
So the balkans invasion would’ve be a logistical problem?
My father participated in this amphibious landing. It was his 5th amphibious landing.
That sounds impressive, given that there weren't too many amphibious landings total in the European theater during WWII. Your father would have had to have done all or almost all of them, it seems.
@@danielmocsny5066 All of them except Normandy.
As always,a splendid video DARK DOCS .I didn't know that Churchill wanted to invade the balklands.Who actually knows what the outcome would have been.The allies at least had air support during this campaign,which is always crucial.
I didn’t even KNOW that the Churchill Balkan plan existed or that Dragoon could have been blamed for the Cold War. Must have slept through that class in high school. Hell, wonder if my cousins and I would have avoided service if our parents generation had won the Balkans and set up defenses. Thanks for this episode.
Invading the Balkans would probably not have prevented the Cold War. It would merely have improved the Anglo-American negotiating position with Stalin for the postwar division of Europe. The gargantuan Red Army would still have rolled over most of Eastern Europe and occupied what became East Germany. To prevent the Cold War, the western Allies would somehow have needed to defeat the Axis say in 1943 while the Germans were still deep in Soviet territory. That was essentially impossible, so it's hard to see how the outcome of WWII could have been much different. Churchill was probably just talking about having a few more territories outside the Iron Curtain. Really just nibbling around the edges rather than preventing the eventual standoff.
The mistake was allying with Stalin in the first place. Germany versus Russia was definitely a situation where we could easily have wished they both might lose.
@@M167A1 Easy to say now. In 1941 it was not so clear. Churchill's comment that he would not unsay anything he had said in the past, but “If Hitler invaded Hell I would make at least a favourable reference to the Devil in the House of Commons.”
In the end the Cold War would never turn hot. And the USSR would come apart at the end of the 1980's. And, until the Alamogordo atomic bomb test was successful, there was every expectation the Red Army would be needed for the final phase of the war.
My cousin took part in 4 invasions before his 19th birthday as a member of the 3rd Division. By going around the Siegfried line the Army could have had even more success than they did if they had the political support.
I wish my sister would go on a diet. Every time she goes to McDonalds they have to change the statistics on the sign out front.
What?
what?
Is she seeing anyone?
Wtf does that have to do with anything
Have you mistaken this site for Twitter?
The video was very interesting. Just wish you'd shown video of the B-26s. My father flew in one and took part in bombing in Southern France during the operation. From Aprill to that time he was based in Corsica. Eventually he was based in Toulon.
Good on your Dad & you. All 4 Uncles, 1 Aunt, & Dad served. 2 served in European Theater & the rest in Pacific. The 20th Century beat Fascism & Communism.
The invasion was by US and French troops, films here are mostly Russian troops in Outer Berlin.
IKR don’t get why he shows any of that? Most of the time there isn’t any point in watching because it’s mostly irrelevant. So I just listen instead 🤣
He isn't narrating a video, he is playing videos of WWII to supplement his narration.
@@timandshannon03 Exactly, odd thing to complain about. It's just random supplementary footage; better than looking at a black screen or still photos.
LOL! No, there is a limited amount of footage of Red Army troops, but mostly when the narrator is specifically addressing what was going on at the time on the Eastern front. There was one specific spot, around 8:30 where the footage didn't match the narrative
I disagree with the position of this filmmaker: that the wiser strategy would’ve been to attack through the Balkans. The invasion of Italy bogged down into a slow slugfest because of the many mountainous bottlenecks in the terrain. From what I can gather, Yugoslavia and Greece are worse. There would’ve been nothing like Patton’s mad dash across France to the Rhine. It might’ve been an invasion force bottled up like Anzio.
wrong
@@DimBeam1 Your reply was remarkably uninformative. Your handle implies that you believe that you’re not very bright or not very sober. Please provide facts and sources that will influence my position regarding war strategy and the qualities of Dim Beam.
Your most humble servant, etc., etc.
Love the content bro so educational
It didn’t ruin the end of WW2 - I have wounder Ed in the past why the 2nd invasion in southern France happened instead of invading thru the Greece or Yugoslavia - which likely have ended the war faster since there was very little German forces in those areas allowing the Western Armies to reach Germany faster - but I recall reading that Roosevelt didn’t take Stalin as a serious foe after Germany was defeated. That was probably Roosevelt’s biggest strategic mistake during WW2. It certainly would have done better than the failed Market Garden operation - and likely would have prevented the German last offensive in the west - the Battle of the Bulge.
Also it would have provided the western allies with airfields much closer to Germany than France - it would have give the battle against Germany a third front - ending WW2 much faster.
Marshall was a Soviet agent. Hence Roosevelt's thinking.
Not mentioned, Churchill always wanted to invade southeast Europe as he had done in WW1. (Remember Gallipoli? That failure was partly because of Churchill. He referred to it as the soft underbelly of Europe). WW2 Churchill was again promoting this strategy. Eisenhower opposed it because the terrain throughout Greece, Yugoslavia, etc. was similar to Italy; mountainous, trees, many rivers with bridges that could easily be destroyed. It was felt by Allied Command that any assault in that region would get bogged down the same as in Italy.
@@rabbit251 I couldn’t agree with you more. Churchill was the guy who dragged us into fighting in the mountains for Italy in a bloody war of attrition and stalemate. We would have fought until 1946 (when we could had dropped atomic bombs on Germany and forced them to surrender) and most of the folks that actually survived the Holocaust would have died in the camps. Churchill was not the best general, and his leadership would have resulted in a further stalemate as the U.S. was running out of replacements by the time of the Battle of the Bulge. The US was pulling rear echelon troops and cadets out of college and other programs to fill the need for replacements. A bloody fight in the mountains (again) would have been a disaster.
Mark Holm --- It didn’t ruin the end of WW2 - I have wounder Ed in the past why the 2nd invasion in southern France happened instead of invading thru the Greece or Yugoslavia - which likely have ended the war faster since there was very little German forces in those areas allowing the Western Armies to reach Germany faster - [....]
Wayne Patterson --- At the time when the Allies were making decisions about the 1944 D-Day campaign planning and after the Italian surrender in 1943, the British were humiliatingly defeated by the Germans in the Dodecanese campaign 8 September to 22 November 1943. Furthermore, the Greeks at that point in time were busy expending more of their efforts to fighting each other than they were in fighting the Germans and Bulgarians. By the time of such a proposed campaign in late 1944 would have been conducted, the Soviets had already compelled the German Army Group E and Army Group F to conduct their withdrawals from Greece and other major areas of the Balkans. So, the such a proposed campaing was rendered moot anyway by the real world events. For those reasons and innumerable other reasons the proposals for an Anglo-American offensive campaign through the Balkans in 1944 was entirely unreasonable, unrealistic, and unnecessary to the point of being nonsensical. Without question doing so would have also had very serious and negative impacts upon the Anglo-American-Franco offensives in France and Germany in the period of July 1944 to May 1945.
Mark Holm --- [...] but I recall reading that Roosevelt didn’t take Stalin as a serious foe after Germany was defeated. That was probably Roosevelt’s biggest strategic mistake during WW2.
Wayne Patterson --- President Roosevelt died on 12 April 1945, so he was no longer the President and Commander-in-Chief after Germany surrendered. Before his death in April 1945 President Roosevelt recognized Stalin as a serious potential rival for the post-war era. That is why President Roosevelt envisioned the transformation of the wartime United Nations into a reorganized postwar United Nations with himself as its first leader. President Roosevelt also calculated the loss of the U.S. Lend Lease supplies after the surrender of Germany would compel the Soviet Union to demobilize most of its capacity to continue an offensive into Westeern Europe.
Mark Holm --- [...] It certainly would have done better than the failed Market Garden operation - and likely would have prevented the German last offensive in the west - the Battle of the Bulge.
Wayne Patterson --- On the contrary, the British failures to achieve the timely captures of Caan, Antwerp, Channel ports, and OPERATION MARKET-GARDEN along with the British defeat in the Dodecanese Campaign in 1943 demonstrated the essential need for the U.S. Sixth Army Group in OPERATION DRAGOON. The diversion of the U.S. Seventh Army into a futile offensive campaign in the Balkans would have required the U.S. Third Army to cover the front actually occupied by the U.S. Seventh Army and the Sixth Army Group. Doing so would have spread the denied the U.S. Third Army the ability to successfully defend against a German offensive along the front from Aachen to the Vosges Mountains and the border with Switzerland. The absence of OPERATION DRAGOON and the Sixth Army Group would have denied the Allies the critical line of communications and supply through the Rhone Valley to the borders of Germany and allowed the German Army Group G to outflank the Allied 21st Army Group from the south and east. Doing so would also allowed Germany to conduct further naval and air operations in the Mediterranean which OPERATION DRAGOON eliminated. The Allied lacked sufficient amphibious and merchant sealift capabilities to support another line of communications and supply for an army or army group through the Balkans.
Mark Holm ---Also it would have provided the western allies with airfields much closer to Germany than France - it would have give the battle against Germany a third front - ending WW2 much faster.
Wayne Patterson --- That comment is nonsense. Airfields in the lower Balkans are about two to six times more distant than from airfields located in Foggia, Italy; Britain, and France. Furthermore, the Allies did not have the additional sealift capacity to support a line of communications and supply from the U.S. to airfields located in the lower Balkans. Air raids against the POL targets at Ploesti, Romania were within reach from North Africa and Foggia, Italy. The third and fourth fronts in the balkans already existed with Allied assistance without diverting the U.S. Seventh Army to an unnecessary and futile mission in the Balkans.
@@johndilday1846 I hate to agree with you but you are totally right. My H.S. principal was only 17 and in 1944 he was in the Pacific working as a Seebee. We had to be digging the bottom of the barrel to have been doing that.
I remember watching documentaries about tthis as a kid, they kinda skimmed over the details of the landing and went right onto the aftermath.
Sort of confused on the argument- not only were the Balkans hard to capture, and a difficult place to fight a war, but Yugoslavia was certainly no friend of the USSR, especially when Stalin was in charge.
At that time it was. Only after 47-48 were Yugoslav-Soviet political relations cut. Churchil was just an evil little man which just like the US and UK in general, wasn't considered friend in Yugoslavia. Both countries air forces terror bombed dozens of our cities and towns allegedly targeting Germans while effectively murdering local population. I have to admit that the Soviet Army significantly helped us to defeat Germans despite suffering their own casualties.
@@matovicmmilan carpet bombing civilians seems to be the American doctrine of war
Soviet "hunger for new territories" is partly that, but also a plausible way to avoid yet another repeated attempt at their annihilation in the future.
Only that their rape of their half of Poland 1939 when they split it with the Nazis wasnt to "secure a buffer zone to prevent annihilation". They were too busy butchering Ukraine farmers to worrt about that.
@@andrewmcclure2905 The vid only brought out the "hunger for new territories regarding the USSR. It seems like you don't like rape and butchery coming from the USSR. Sure, me too, but your being choosy. It's a near universal in war.
You failed to list the US Airborne component of the operation. The First Airborne Task Force was not a singular British endeavor. It was commanded by the recently promoted Brig. General Robert Fredrick (the former commander of the FSSF), it included the following US combat forces; The 517th Parachute Regimental Combat Team, the 509th PIB, 550 GIB, and 551 PIB, as well as a slew of airborne artillery, mortar, engineer, and support units. The plan also included French Para's but thier participation was scrapped due to disagreements between Allied brass.
My grandfather flew in a glider that landed in Southern France. He was in the 45th Infantry Division.
But the Politically Correct portion of the story would have been missing.
He should have been complete in the details, but not cherry pick something for one community.
I don't think he failed by forgetting or not knowing, just watch his other videos
My father was with the 517th.
@@jerryking4710 My Father was an NCO in B Company of the 517th, I used to go to all the conventions and even Jumped with some of the men from the 517th during a Dragoon Anniversary jump.
Invading the Balkans would have been like invading Italy again and getting bogged down. Italy was held until the end as would have the Yugoslavian areas, yet Churchill had a habit of wanting to invade easily defensible areas (Like the Dardanelle's in WW1). Churchill was pugnacious/stubborn yet that does not save lives or win battles. Dragoon allowed a sweeping movement with German unit's retreating wholesale across the whole front up to the southern border areas of Germany in France. It was a crucial move and Eisenhower made commanders decision. (I'm no Eisenhower fan boy.)
I always wondered why there was no amphibious invasion of southern France.... which seemed a lot more sensible than the difficult slog up Italy
Now, it turns out there WAS an invasion of southern France! I have never heard anything about this
A turn in your life. Great
Interesting video and interesting comments. My own armchair generalship would have supported the invasion of southern France. Churchill seemed obsessed with a southern strategy. He was a supporter of invading the Dardanelles in WWI which ended poorly. He also championed the invasion of Italy attacking the soft underbelly of Europe. The soft underbelly didn’t turn out so well as the numerous rivers and mountainous terrain were made for defence. Of course it might have gone better if Mark Clarke was not in charge of US forces. From what I’ve read the Balkans would have presented similar terrain challenges and more difficult logistics. Armchair General Chiller gonna side with FDR and Ike on this one.
One of my idols. Lincoln, Washington, FDR are my top 3.
Ancient history.
Current situation in Washington DC is frightful.
Ancient History.....The Marxists slowly established themselves in DC thru the state department and worked via the department of education that was established later. The icing on the cake was the socialist destruction of the family unit under the guise of welfare. The department of health and human services facilitated getting dad's out of the picture. LBJ was proud of himself after he nailed that coffin shut.
Hey admin Churchill was “ British’ Prime-minister don’t say “English’ PM. Makes you look amateurish.
Because you spoke condescendingly, you should know that Churchill was "Prime Minister of the United Kingdom.". If you are going to be an a-hole and correct someone, you should probably check yourself...
No, actually, it doesn't. But it does make you out to be a sad pedantic git. Where's your RUclips content on the same subject matter?
CMDR Dave that doesn't change the fact that Churchill was an English War Criminal just like Hitler and Stalin...
Did I miss something? I failed to see how this operation "Almost Ruined the End of WW2"
The politics were brutal, the landing in southern France had just three US Divisions for the fighting of Germans. The French were used as occupational troops for the most part. The British and the Americans just kept beating their heads against the Siegfried line in the north, and the British kept telling Roosevelt and Ike to stop the supplies to southern France, which did happen for awhile. Very bitter infighting amongst the allies, Stalin wanted more supplies all the time.
@@markskeldon1347 Thank you for your reply
Video was decent but the title you mention was clickbait exaggeration
@@markskeldon1347 There were plenty of supplies. The problem was Allies had not captured a deep water port to bring the supplies in.
Me 2
Churchill was right. He was the only one to understand the threat of the soviet advance in central europe from a geopolitical perspective. He wanted a landing around Venice and Trieste and moving towards Vienna, Prague and Budapest.
The Americans (FDR to be more specific), considered the Soviets as true allies. He had informed the Soviets about his intention to land in Trieste. Stalin convinced him that it was not necessary and that a landing in southern France would be better.
Unfortunately for Europe, the americans had not understood by then what the Soviets wanted.
George Kennan's "Long Telegram", will be sent in 1946....
Thanks for a very informative and interesting video. I never heard of this campaign. Learned a lot from this. Thanks
So, it sounds like Operation Dragoon didn't ruin the end of WW2 so much as it ruined the Western position in the Cold War.
I red that the Balkans would have been a difficult operation. The area was mountainous and had little infrastructure. It may have been a repeat of the Italian front.
One advantage is that they would have the ally of Tito's partisans, who were already giving the Nazis serious headaches. I wonder if the best plan would be skipping Italy altogether and going up through the Eastern/central Balkans. This could have been the best overall strategy to contain Stalin's territorial lust. There is no way he would have turned on the allies directly, he was too weakened and dependent on Lend Lease.
I agree w/Mathieu.
On furth2er thought...why not make the main assault on poorly defended South France instead of Normandy? Bonus is you get to bypass the nasty bocage that killed thousands of our boys.
@@terraflow__bryanburdo4547 I guess they wanted a quick road to Germany. There's also the air bases in the UK and the shorter supply roads. That's how I see it anyway.
@@mathieugariepy2948 In my 20/20 hindsight version, we skip Italy altogether (maybe take Sicily) as it has no strategic value and is horrible terrain for attack; instead we head through the Balkans more or less in synch with an invasion of South France. All of this could be done by late '43 (weather not an issue even in winter), and the path from Marseille/Toulon to the Rhine is far easier than from Normandy. Berlin would be in peril from three directions instead of two, and the human rights bonus of Allies securing E. Europe would be invaluable (we would still have to concede a buffer zone to Stalin, just not the entirety of E Europe).
Churchill would lose his hobby horse of Italy (the "Soft Underbelly of Europe"...NOT!) but gain the Balkans where he wanted to foil Stalin's plans.
In his bestselling memoir Wedemeyer Reports! (New York: Holt,1959), General Albert C. Wedemeyer wrote that the landings in southern France were essential to shore up the right flank of the armies advancing eastward from Normandy.
Your film clips show, in part, fighting on the Eastern Front, with no correspondence to the commentary ??
Forgetting ANY history is a bad idea and problem
Those that forget are bound to repeat it.
Yeah my dad went in that day with the 45th infantry
Churchill's obsession with the Mediterranean was not one of his positive aspects. He constantly underestimated the difficulty of the terrain and the ability of a defending force to make life miserable for an attacking army. He was absolutely right about the Soviets becoming an enemy after the war, and how they would dominate Eastern Europe, but the Balkans would have been another cul de sac of a front. Geopolitics is a real concern in any war, but you fight and win the battles on actual terrain, and what might be desirable from a political aspect rarely precisely coincides with the ground over which victory can be achieved. The presence of an Anglo-American army on the plains of Northwest Europe meant the Axis was doomed, however long it took to finish the business.
I get tired of people who harp on how the Allies 'allowed' the Soviets to overrun Eastern Europe. There was not much we could do about it, if we wanted to win the war before 1948. A sad 'geopolitical' truth, especially for Czechs, Poles, Hungarians, Romanians....
My Grandfather was in Operation Dragoon as a member of The U.S./Canada First Special Service Force
The Balkans invasion was a political move. Churchill wanted a say in the peace negotiations; Eisenhower wanted to conclude the war with fewer casualties.
Mark Felton > Dark Docs
Just a note here. This operation did not land in a place relevant for the Atlantic Wall, it happened in the Mideterranian. The defences there were called the Souther Wall...because...you know, not the Altantic Sea...
That was my father's seventh and last landing. His eight was supposed to be honshu but Col. Tibbets made that unnecessary. Why do you show so much soviet film mixed in? T 34s and papashas are blatantly obvious in the films.
Remember that these videos (literally almost all on RUclips) are produced quick and dirty, on a minimal budget. They snag any even remotely royalty free non copyrighted media on the net to illustrate their point and add entertainment value to us cheap viewers watching for free. Like it, great, don’t, well unsubscribe. But expecting top quality from a one man operation trying to churn out a volume of videos to make a buck. Keep in mind too that if every one of his subscribers watched this video AND watched the ads he might make $20. The never happens as we all skip the videos, bringing down the average revenue for a channel of 100,000 subscribers $13 per video over its lifetime. That’s why many channels have 3 to 10 different channels and try and produce a video each per day (they usually have 2 or 3 people).
@@Erin-Thor Okay. He had part of it right, especially showing my old man's boat and other allied men and equipment.
The soviet stuff was just incorrect. I was trying to point out how to make it better quality. I'm a believer in take the time to do things right. Since I used to design and build bridges be glad that they are extra strong. Good Luck, Rick
@@richardross7219 - I agree with you completely. I’ve followed a few “behind the scenes” videos of channels making videos like these. There’s a lot less thought that goes into them than we might think. One point they make is that RUclips has drastically cut what channels earn. Originally a channel with 100k subs making a video a day could make about 70k annually, now that same model earns a few thousand. Which is why so many channels have multiple channels, produce similar videos, and production values have dropped.
@@richardross7219 edit, just checked, Dark has this channel and 4 others for 5 total.
He showed T34s because he was also talking about the eastern front. Blatantly obvious if you're paying attention when watching the video
Always forgotten : 2 U.S aircraft carriers ( with Hellcats of VF-74 and VOF - 1 ) for the operation Dragoon...U.S.S Kasaan Bay and U.S.S Tulagi under command of C.A Calvin Thornton Durgin.
Whats the rush? The narration sounds like there is a time limit before a bomb blows up. Content is great, though.
Set playback speed to 0 .75 .
I like the way he speaks, it's unusual and different. It implies a sense or urgency, which seems to me to be appropriate considering the subject matter.
I met some people in Perpignan who insisted that the southern landings were bad for them as German troops retreated South West towards the Pyranees. Whether they were having an easy "Vichy" time of it until then I do not know but there was moderate to heavy fighting in border towns with Spain. I was also told that American offices had an arrangement with the Spanish in border crossings at Cerbere to vet German troops entering Port Bou. The rumour was that the Yanks allowed disarmed regular wermacht to escape unarmed as they hunted and weeded out SS and war criminals.
Sibole Staline well sometimes when you take out the fanatics everything falls into place. They are the head of the snake... Sometimes. Idk if that would work for the Germans. They are a proud people.
Now I want to see an Alternate History episode where the Allies followed Churchill’s plan instead.
Okay, so in 1944, despite Allied strategic bombing, the German economy was put on a proper "war economy" as a result of the German "Total War" campaign; and during that time, German industry outproduced previous years--by a significant margin. So, it isn't exactly fair to say that German industry had been 'crippled;' Germany's problem were three fold:
1. despite the success of Speer in increasing German military production in 1944, Germany and Japan were at war with 2/3rds of the total industrial capacity then present on the earth. This meant that increases in German industrial output, the Axis powers were so completely outproduced that this increase in output had a very minimal affect on the war;
2. The German shortage of fuel starting with the invasion of the Soviet Union (whom they had been precuring fuel oil from prior to June of 1941) were well known. By 1944 the Allied campaign in Italy had put Germany's last remaining source of oil--the Romanian oil fields--in easy range of Allied strategic bombing. At the end of the day, this further stressed German industry *and* the German military. The Wehrmacht did not have the fuel to use the armored fighting vehicles being produced to their fullest potential;
3. Germany by the summer of 1944 was suffering from *severe* manpower shortages, and the Soviets were at this point winning so decisively that all the able bodied German men available were being sent East. So, as you point out, the Atlantic wall, not just in southern France, was largely protected by soldiers recruited from former Soviet territories, old reservists, and Germans who had been wounded so severely at one point or another that they were not fit for 'frontline' service; and as an honorable mention
4. While German weapons of war, like tanks and jet aircraft, were in fact very good they were not very efficient to produce--for example German tanks did not have a universal set of parts they all shared. This further exacerbated the problems inherent in German industrial output, so while the Germans produced 18,956 armored fighting vehicles in 1944, the Allies produced:
a. Soviet Union: 28,525
b. United States: 21,267
c. United Kingdom: 6,000
You have slowed your speech a little. It improves the videos greatly. Thanks. I subscribed. Happy Holiday to you and yours.
I can notice any difference
@@marcamant7258 Yeah, he's back to his old habits.
@@tackyman2011 I give up following this kind of Channel with such a voice.
Shame the narrator has to stumble over his words, the history is important, the content well presented, why rush the information, it needs to be absorbed. Thanks
This is one of my favorite channels
Keep it up 👍
Too nice historic video showing and clear explaining of events and ,behind reasons which encourages allies were doing it against axis including political and conversations among allies
There's alot about Churchill that I don't like, but he was a crafty old bugger. He had a point on this matter. Delicate international relations among the big three Allies were a changing high wire act throughout the war. From a threatened mutiny among ETO American officers against Eisenhower if he didn't stop cow towing to the British, to FDR seemingly slighting Churchill for a possibly favorable post war relationship with Stalin, it was complicated.
@Edgar Miller Don't know anything about that, but it was obvious that the Soviets where going to finish the war in a very powerful position. Indeed, Stalin kept something like 72 Red Army divisions activated post war, most were armored and mechanized. The Capitalistic Western powers didn't want to pay to keep large military formations in play so they relied on the Atom bomb monopoly till 1949 when they learned that the Soviets had achieved the bomb.
Interesting idea if if Southern France was invaded first, followed by the main invasion in Normandy. Would this have been seen as a possible feignt.
@lati long I understand though. History must be viewed as based on what people knew at the time. Market garden seemed like a good idea until it failed.
PM Winston Churchill, President Franklin Roosevelt and Soviet Dictator Joseph Stalin
well I've never known Stalin has a such badass title
Even at this early date Cold. War strategies were being made . In no way did we want the French to be sympathetic to the Russians. Both the French and the Americans were bound by their help in breaking away from England . The Americans remained grateful to them !
I like your channel and am a subscriber but sometimes your background videos do not match your commentary. As an example just after the intro when you are talking about operation Anvil you are showing marines landing in the Pacific.
This operation was a success it didn't ruin shyt.They suffered less than 400 casualties when landing and the overall operation ended a month ahead of time. It got free French Forces involved in taking back their own country.
Montgomery and Eisenhower were essentially political representatives, and Patton was more like Attila the Hun. Patton should have been in charge. He was the best our side had.
Marshall was, but Patton was definitely our most effective of the war
this has inaccuracies in it. the actual truth is that the US wanted to have a dual landings in france rather then invading italy from the start. the italy invasion was churchills idea the US didnt want to do it. churchill mentioned AFTER we invade sicily then move onto invade the balkans.(this was so to secure the british empire's lands and not push the nazi's out of power. this showed just how poor churchill was at planning anything other then how much booze he would guzzle that day. in doing this it would have delayed the invasion of france by at least a year which would have led to the soviet union taking complete control of germany.
Churchill viewed Europe as British sphere of influence. He needed American wealth and manpower to keep it. Thank God for Eisenhower,Marshall and King. The british citizens fired him after the German surrender. The high human cost of empire was too much. They did not want him playing chess with their lives anymore.
Everyday I look for the Dark files!!
And every day Dark Files looks for you...or at least for your clicks.
@@danielmocsny5066 a
The French Army was never going to fight in the Balkans. The allies needed the ports of Toulouse and Marsalles to handle large supply requirements. The US had rebuilt the French rail system from Marsalles to support supply of US troops in WWI, supply could be provided for us and French forces on right flank for invasion of Germany. Churchill was utterly wrong about collapse of German resistance in France after Dragoon. Dragoon was probably the most successful invasion of Europe by the allies.
Why not invade northern Italy in August 1944? This would compleetly destabilize the war for the HKO.
It was the better choice to consolidate the liberation of France, especially with free French forces contributing to it. The forced retreat and abandonment of France by German occupation forces were successfully secured this way. A new front in the Balkans would have provoked a discord with Russian forces and perhaps even the loss of a coordinated ally. More importantly the focus of allied resources was on WWII and the defeat of Hitler and Japan, a huge task enough and not looking for WWIII and eternal war thereafter. I continually find reason to admire Eisenhower’s wisdom on many big decision occasions.
I dont think the American public was ready for a potential war with the Soviet Union. We still had a Japan fighting us in every more desperate measures. The American people wanted the war over. If they woke up to find we were fighting the Soviet Union in the winter of 45 it would had been a real problem. With that said WWII failed to free people from Eastern Europe from totalitarianism.
@@Elementalism I fully agree.
I’ve just found this Chanel. Glad I did. 👍🏻🇬🇧
Chanel, a handbag or a purse
Churchill was right about Stalin, but he forgot the old maxim of war -- "Never start the next war before you finish the first one."
Hitler made that mistake when he invaded the Soviet Union before finishing off the British and the Free French. Had Alllied forces invaded the Balkans, they may well have secured Eastern European territory before Stalin's forces did, but it would have greatly prolonged the fighting in Western Europe, leading to greater casualties, a factor greatly affecting morale among the American and British peoples by the summer of 1944.
Given that the Balkans effectively liberated themselves, it's entirely possible US/UK operations in the Balkans would've still resulted in a Tito led Yugoslavia, outright prevented their advance into Germany, and soured relations with the French. Nothing's a sure thing in war.
I notice in the whole commentary that the intransigence of the Vichy French was ignored. Personalities played a big part in the lead up to the invasion and although in the end, it did go fairly smoothly, an embarrassing situation of Allies actually ending up fighting French troops, was very narrowly avoided by frantic diplomacy behind the scenes.
Vichy France had been more or less dissolved by 1944. Germany moved in to occupy Southern France in 1942, after the Allied landings in North Africa. Granted, there was significant collaboration among the population of France up to liberation (and they were dealt with), but the actual government had been moved into exile by the time of Dragoon.
My Uncle landed there, after serving in Africa & Italy. I think is a wise move to invade S. France instead of the Balkens.
Why’s that?
Great documentary, but it might be worth trying to slow down your narration. It sounds like you’re rushing each line then taking a few seconds to catch your breath.
The advance north has been largely ignored by historians, as was the contribution by 6th Army Group. This may outlay have to do with the clashes between Devers and Eisenhower. In an almost Soviet way. Devers has been air-brushed out of history despite his high rank and the accomplishments of his forces.
I dunno? As an American it’s a tough choice of who I distrust more the British or the Russians. I think I would choose the Russians to ally with? Tough call!
Enjoyed your video and I gave it a Thumbs Up
1:56) Italy's invasion was another bright idea of Churchill's that turned out to be very dim. Operation Market & Operation Garden were his. Denmark is another.
He was also responsible in WW1 for the disastrous landing at Gallipoli in Turkey, utilizing Australian soldiers which were wiped out.
@@williamdean4101 The concept was good; implementation bordered on the amateur . . .
Operation market garden was Monty's hubris, with poor intelligence. Grabbing Denmark kept the soviets from going there - good move.
Thank you so much Churchill for pushing for a split assault, oh how history could have been different...
Excellent analysis.
Man those French women are all class, in the middle of a battle running for cover ...in high heels. 👌
Imagine a big 3 conference with Hitler instead of Stalin......that would've been interesting to see
The world would have been a better place if germany would have been allowed to finish off stalin.
@@datadavis wrong