GERMAN INVASION OF THE NETHERLANDS: ruclips.net/video/_IIsY664tE4/видео.html GERMAN EFFECTIVENESS IN MAY 1940: ruclips.net/video/o-dBkEqdq-o/видео.html DUTCH EFFECTIVENESS IN MAY 1940: ruclips.net/video/lGLmxN8hx7o/видео.html
Thank you ❤💕🌹 I thought the expierienced pilots of lost were more worth than the planes in the long run 👀 books.google.nl/books?id=NDwRBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT90&lpg=PT90&dq=kesselring+dutch+losses&source=bl&ots=X9sV1NAWAo&sig=ACfU3U2WQH8DW7S7knfR3A3_VdVg480hyw&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8hJPZkt7nAhUNsaQKHZQzDlgQ6AEwA3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=kesselring%20dutch%20losses&f=false
Since you mentioned the Polish, Czech, and French pilots fighting in England, during the 42 days of what is now considered the Battle of Britain, a single Polish Squadron 303 shot down 126 German planes. That gives you an idea of the scale of that battle. Salute to all that fought!
"Bloody foreigners: Untold Battle of Britain" is a documentary about the big influence the Polish fighter pilots had during the Battle of Britain. Not only did they shoot down more planes than the other squadrons, they also suffered significantly lower losses. Special mention of Josef Frantisek. Originally a Czech pilot, he fled after the Nazis took over, joined the Polish Airforce and fought during the Battle of Poland. After the defeat, he escaped the Germans again and joined the French Foreign Legion (they wouldn't let him join the French Airforce). Following the French defeat, he moved to Great Britain and ended up rejoining his Polish comrades in one of the Free Polish RAF Squadrons. He was a brilliant fighter pilot but would often leave formation to hunt German planes on his own. After a few arguments, it was decided he was allowed to remain with the squadron and was also allowed to go off hunting alone. Sadly, he was shot down and killed on 8 October 1940, a few weeks after the Battle of Britain. 17 confirmed kills.
@@HistoryHustle besides the documentary, they made a movie about it, called 'Squadron 303' which is pretty acurate. You can say without any doubt that they played an important role in the battle of England. How much the influence was of the Dutch is hard to tell, but I guess if they didn't shot down those planes, the nazis had more material to use for the battle of England. Another thing is that (like you said) that they were complaining about shortages in the begining (transportation planes) so it gave England more time too to produce planes and other weapons. So yes it wasn't negative for England but when it comes to figures I honestly don't know.
I remember this line from the movie "A Bridge Too Far." Where General Gavin is talking to his Dutch liaison officer about jumping into a region named Nijmegen and showing his misgivings about the operation. He referred to the German drop in 1940 which he stated "got slaughtered." It showed it wasn't as easy as the Germans made it look.
Also remember dutch forces where only ordered to surrender after the bombing of Rotterdam and threat of doing the same to the other larger cities , after 5 days.-7 if counting the battle of zeeland. The British army was routed and pussed back in the sea at dunkirk in less then then 2 weeks as the invasion started at the 10th of may the evacuation of britisch troops at dunkirk started the 21st of may.
Thank you, you've already seen the other videos? GERMAN INVASION OF THE NETHERLANDS: ruclips.net/video/_IIsY664tE4/видео.html GERMAN EFFECTIVENESS IN MAY 1940: ruclips.net/video/o-dBkEqdq-o/видео.html DUTCH EFFECTIVENESS IN MAY 1940: ruclips.net/video/lGLmxN8hx7o/видео.html
Although I started to learn about WW2 since leaving the Bavarian Alps in 2000, where I worked for the US Armed Forces. I knew little of the Dutch influence (if any) Glad to know that they did what they could, as I lived in Holland too for a short while and knew many dutch and had a Dutch girlfriend, when I was younger, in the 70s/80s.
@@mangekyoubyakugan5913 hoe bedoel je veraders sommigen waren al lid van de nsb voor dat Hitler überhaupt veel macht kreeg in Duitsland het was gewoon een politieke partij zoals de PVV of groen links maar nu vergeet men dat vaak dus nee geen veraders
Military commentator's consensus exist that the Germans cruelly lacked transport planes during the battle of Crete both for the initial assault as for the resupply. The losses inflicted by the Dutch definitely contributed to this situation. German paratroopers where so beaten up at Crete that the final victory was fought by the Gebrigsjäger (mountain troops) ferried in mainly by sea. Also, the lack of transport planes caused the failure of the resupply by air of the encircled Stalingrad and contributed to the German loss of this battle. Groetjes uit Zwitseland!
@@conny5296 Yes, the Demjansk air-bridge was a further step in the attrition of the German air transport fleet. But strangely enough, it was the Demjansk operation that convinced some, including Göring himself, that Stalingrad could be supplied from the air. But by then, the air transport capacity had dwindled to the point of being incapably of keeping up with demands, especially in the face of the strengthening Soviet air power.
@@robendert7617 exactly. I think crete was around 500 transport planes involved while Stalingrad was around 200 but you need to remeber try supply 500k people with only 200 planes.
Nice video, in my opinion both Belgian and Dutch armies (650k and 750k if I remember correctly) played a significant role in 1940. It's good that you bring more attention to this less known parts of history. For example Luftwaffe lost 20-25% of it's power during the Polish campaign, Wehrmacht also lost closely 1/5 of tanks, and basically noone knows about it.
In the beginning German army was unstoppable, unfortunately of course. Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, France to some extant U.K, later Greece and Yugoslavia. In the first stages of Barbarossa even Soviet Army was defenseless against blitzkrieg, USSR lost millions of POW's in months. What halted German offensive was in big part the Russian winter. Considering that, inflicting damage as heavy as the Netherlands or Poland did is quite an achievement.
@@pacthug4life ah yes, the typical wehraboo that says the germans lost because of the Russian winter. Do you really think cold weather stopped "the unstoppable german army"? There were many more important factors involved
Its good to hear somone talking about pre barbrosa it seems ww2 historians are always talking about the eastern front and just fly over the campaigns that secured Europe as their jump off point. thank you!
If you look at the total JU52 losses in The Netherlands and Crete, That's a lot of aircraft that weren't available for the Russian campaign. This could have had an effect on the outcome at Stalingrad and the campaign for the oil fields. Would be interesting to look at the numbers.
Love your channel and your passion! Keep on going! I live in Friesland, lots of plane wrecks here and even a forest where V2’s were launched. One exploded in this forest during launch, I would love to see if there are any parts left. Metal detecting has become so much better and cheaper. Best regatds, Bert
The Germans could have used a few more operational transport planes at Stalingrad, and in the North African campaign. In both of these critical battles, the lack of transport planes proved an important factor.
This is exciting for me to even learn about the Dutch destruction of German Aircraft during this phase of WWII and that it may have influenced later German War planning decisions! You are great at making sense of the interactions and outcomes of WWII!
I like your channel, and in this session, I like your gear. Your helmet usually called "topi tuan opsir" in Indonesian. And the WW2 finally opening our door to Independence. However I salute to all Dutch fighters who fought the Nazi's.
Even with limited air superiority the Jerry's wouldn't have been able to invade the UK, the UK Navy ruled the seas and that included the English Channel. Paratroopers were used by the US, Canadian and UK forces very effectively in WWII, but when they jumped they were jumping fully armed and with reserve ammunition. When the Jerry's jumped, they were unarmed and had to retrieve their weapon boxes that were tossed out at the same time their jumpers went out. The Jerry's took a lot of killed/wounded, especially in Create jumping in that configuration.
Ookal ben ik nog niet heel lang geabonneerd, kijk ik wel je video's over Nederland in ww2. Ik vind dit echt tof maar kan je AUB een video maken van de Nederlandse luchtmacht of marine in ww2? Het zou echt te gek zijn
As a tourguide in the Aviodrome airplane museum in Lelystad (I'm talking about pre-Covid times of course) I always tell the people in my tourgroups that the losses of the Luftwaffe in the Netherlands did not influence the outcome of the Battle of Britain much (some videos and texts in the museum make that claim) but that the losses of the Ju-52's may have had some effect on the supplying of the Arikakorps and the 6th army in Stalingrad, and the attack on Crete. Come to think of it though: the heavy losses of the Luftwaffe were not limited to the battle of the Netherlands alone, they also suffered heavy casualties over Belgium and France. The Luftwaffe was used a lot in the Western campaign and did a lot of damage to the allies, but with that come the inevitable losses: about 2000 planes, based on a quick calculation using wikipedia data. Obviously that must have weakened the Luftwaffe before the Battle of Britain.
The fact that the German changed their use of Paratroops after the Battle of Crete (May 1941) rather than after the invasion of the low Countries (May 1940), to me indicates that Crete was the point at which tactical use of Paratroopers changed, but opertion Seelow was scheduled for Sept 1940, before Crete, so the same tactics would have been used over Britian - which in turn indicates any lessons learned by Germany had no influence on the invasion plans - But a thought provoking video just the same and its always good to see events fom a different national perspective
Excellent topic, the German loss of their transport aircraft was something that upset Herr Hitler than the other aircraft. Apparently the manufacture of these transport aircraft was expensive and took longer toreplace. Brilliant subject
The best story I was told was from an American sniper who fought in WWII in Europe. He told me that at one point the Americans were fighting the Germans across a small river in France, and the Germans were well dug in. The Americans brought up 3 tank destroyers to destroy a blockhouse across the river (just after daylight). My friend climbed up a ladder into a French barn so he could get a better view and possibly do a little sniping. The tank destroyers fired and destroyed the blockhouse. Meanwhile the Germans replied with some mortar fire, and one of the mortar shells went through the roof of the barn and imbedded in the floor between my friend’s feet! He figured that the mortar round was one that had been manufactured by the French or European slave laborers that the Germans used in the captured armaments factories. They were always sabotaging the ammunition, were sometimes caught, and executed immediately if caught. Anyway, he was always appreciative of the resistance fighters because their sabotage saved his life. He survived and returned to the US, and was 95 years old the last time I saw him several years ago.
I did hear that the shortage of transport planes caused by the battle of the Netherlands and Crete may have contributed to the defeat of the germans during the battle of Stalingrad as the surounded germans were supplied by air.
Interesting point. I believe I saw a video of TIK history who concluded supplying the German 6th Army was a lost cause anyway. With their lack of fuel (since the Germans did manage to succeed to capture the Caucasus oil fields) it wasn't possible to begin with.
Another factor in this equation was Demyansk. Even though the German 16th Army managed to punch through a corridor to their encircled II Army Corps in March, 1942 it was highly insecure as a supply line and they had to continue with airlift for most supplies until the evacuation in February, 1943. In the process the Luftwaffe suffered steady losses in transports and gliders for nearly a full year.
It's funny because Brexiters have a meme ''so you're saying a country which won 2 world wars coudln't survive on its own'' while Bremainers have a meme ''so you're saying Britain could've won ww2 without the help of USA, USSR and at least 20 more countries''?
Congratulations, you win the award for most gratuitous, pointless and irrelevant shoehorning of Brexit into a totally unrelated yt comments section. Where else have you made gratuitous references to Brexit, in a film about Mongolian Yak farmers?
Brexit isn't about UK becoming North Korea and shutting its borders . it is about opening up to the world on our own terms without needing 27 other countries giving their consent. or rather one chancellor in Berlin ... i understand how Brexit is portrayed in msm across Europe and how misunderstood it is. a deliberate policy by msm
@@coling3957 Erm...no. The whole Basil Fawlty PoV reporting on Brexit is a strictly Anglo thing. The rest of Europe doesn't need WW2 to explain Brexit.
According to 322's wiki, the squadron was not formed until 1943. I don't think it is impossible that dutch pilots flew RAF planes during the battle of britain, but my gut feeling tells me there can't have been too many. I have to read that book by Bob van der Stok again, "Oorlogsvlieger van Oranje". He was one of only three people that escaped Stalag Luft III ( "The great escape") and in the book he describes how he participated in the air battle in the may days, how he escaped to England (I think the movie "Soldaat van Oranje" was based a lot on his accounts and those of Erik Hazelhoff Roelfsema), how he joined the RAF, was shot down, captured, put in a POW camp, escaped, got back to England again, rejoined the RAF and flew missions until the end of the war.
I have read a bit in "Valkenburg, mei 1940, de strijd om het vliegveld en het dorp" by D. Harff and P. Harff. There was a Dutch soldier who used handgrenades. Can you confirm this is true?
Disruption of the Supply Transport wing may not have been decisive in the Batle of Britain, but keep in mind that the Sixth Army would be starved into surrender at Stalingrad, because all those Ju 62 Transports were not there to deliver the supplies the Sixth Army needed to survive.
From what I believe - and I do have to further research this - is that supplying the immense 6th army via air was practically impossible to start with.
I almost fully agree however saying that it using paratroopers was a costly operation is a bit short through the corner. They did the same at fort Eben Emal and that was a very succesful and they took very few loses. Crete however was indeed the final straw.
The Dutch merchant navy leaving The Netherlands for the UK was a bigger contribution. Therefor the Germans also had a problem transporting the troops to the other side. The biggest mistake made was to let the British escape Dunkirk. Maybe the Germans did want to go for air superiority over the UK because the saw what happened in The Netherlands if you do not have it. And even if you loose 107 fighters - that means a lot of them which you could have used in the Battle of Brittain. It means the Germans would have started the Battle of Brittain with 2700 planes instead of 2600. How minute these faces may seem I would say all of these little experiences the Germans had does influence the future attacks.
I disagree so much! The Germans actually lost a lot more planes than the numbers mentioned in these video's and comments. Where is your research!? Also, the ships you mentioned could never ever have escaped to fight another day if the Dutch didn't fight back so effectively. Not just their navy, also the merchant fleet got away in big numbers. Also, Dutch troops under French command in Zeeland en Zeeuws vlaanderer put up a fight untill may 25, which slowed down the Germans too, helping the British to escape. All this helped immensely to frustrate the subsequent battle over Britain. It seems also, how many people do not understand anything about the essential strategic relevance and importance of a retreat. A serious ommision, a classic mistake, one even Hitler made, which actually cost him millions of troops, because he denied them to retreat, so they would end up defeated, killed or captured time and time again. Retreat is not cowardess, it is common sense to save troops to fight another day. It is proven to work.
@@Schepraam - then show us the right numbers I would say."your numbers are wrong - show me the evidence" is a weird approach. "Here are my numbers and the evidence/source to show you my numbers are correct" is something that is more appriciated.
@@stevenbos5206 It's not a match to me, but I suggest you check multiple sources. I did and came up with a more nuanced picture. For instance: De Luftwaffe verloor in één dag 361 vliegtuigen. www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/4/militair/luftwaffe-verloor-boven-nederland-361-vliegtuigen-in-acacn-dag And also: "The Luftwaffe lost about 525 airplanes during the campaign in Holland. Of those 525 about half could be recovered, repaired or used for reassembly of other damaged planes within six months after the Dutch capitulation." www.waroverholland.nl/index.php?page=balance
Dear sir! Would you kindly to make sometimes a video about Dutch revolution of 16th century and 80 years war, or videos of Dutch great companies (West and East companies)? Thank you!
It was the Royal Navy which was the barrier to stop the invasion of Britain. The RAF prevented German air superiority, every plane the Germans lost prior didn't help their effort naturally. The 2nd world war was an oil war the reason it turned at Stalingrad case blue and El Alamein. The Germans after these 2 battles lost their opportunity to fuel their armed for offensive operations.
Thank you so much for your bright videos on the subject. The numbers of German warplanes shot down above the Netherlands were indeed rather high, circa 375 (330?), mainly Junker 52 transporters. However I never did see the numbers shot down by The Belgians or the French (And for the same reason Denmark and Norway) and therefor it is not easy to establish an opinion on the comparative role the Dutch airdefense played in the international theatre of May 1940. Can you provide these numbers? That would be very informative in my opinion.
Totaly unknown fact: according to one of the best french historian, Dominique Lormier, the french shot down 50% of the Luftwaffe over France(the RAF greatly helped too)
The German paratroopers suffered so many losses in the Netherlands during may 1940, that they could only be deployed again 2 years later in Crete, After that were hardly used in their original role anymore, apart from some limited operations on the Eastern front. They were however still considered as elite troops, who for instance defended Monte Cassino.
Paratroopers from all nations are usually considered to be elite fighting forces because of the incredible and rigorous training they receive. However, at the same time, nobody really considers landing full sized division from the air anymore. In his memoirs, American General Gavin, commander of the 82nd "All American" Airborne Division (people keep mixing them up with the 101st "Screaming Eagles" even during wartime because both were usually dropped next to each other or, as happened in Normandy, on top or all around each other in all the confusion and missed dropzones occurrances. Anyway, Gavin wrote that in the weeks prior to "D-Day," both divisions were scheduled to do a few full scale training air drops but because of the high number of casualties, he put a stop to that because it began affecting the men's morale. Remember how many planes were shot down during the first hour of the airdrop the night before D-Day? Also, the men that did survive the air drop and did not drown in the sea or inundated fields, were hopelessly spread out. They did achieve surprise and caused chaos in the German second line but on the day after the drop, all they did was trying to find their units and their objectives. During World War 2, anti aircraft batteries were deadly but they were not all radar guided and they certainly did not have guided missiles. That is why nowadays, even though paratroopers are still being trained and deployed, they are never dropped over enemy territory in full sized divisions anymore.
@@HistoryHustle That's just the thing with elite forces. Without combat experience, such a unit is only 'elite' because of its training etc. The SS units deployed in The Netherlands were green troops but later on in the war they got better. The German paratroopers during the later years of the war were definitely combat veterans who did great work (for the Germans) at Monte Cassino and on the Eastern Front. However at the time of the Battle of the Bulge, not much was left of them.
what a staggering loss of transport aircraft, I never knew! I'd love to see You and or/any military historian do a video on what was the mindset that built the paratrooper forces in all these countries since there was no WWI precedent for paratroopers. I just saw a video on the Japanese invasion of Indonesia and one of its elite paratroop units received 80% casualties in a mostly lopsided win! Likewise the annals of the paratroop forces as a whole in WW2 were pretty terrible. These were generally physically superior troops who required extra training and were often considered elite but time and time again it was proven how hard it was to concentrate troops in an airdrop and hold out with only light weaponry and minimal surface transport...
Het idee dat NL een doorslaggevende rol gespeeld zou hebben en de uitkomst van de Battle of Britain zou hebben beinvloed lijkt mij niet waarschijnlijk, Zelfs aan het einde van de oorlog, tijdens het Ardennenoffensief wisten de Duitsers nog 2000 vliegtuigen in te zetten, en tegen die tijd hadden ze al flink op hun bek gekregen op beide fronten. Keep up the good work, I like your channel.
I think the losses in fighters and bombers was still relevant in the Battle of Britain. Even if it only counted for a percentage of the total losses Germany suffered in 1940, that still makes a difference. Especially in the long term, as German production simply could not compete with the allies, and they experienced labour shortages whenever their campaigns dragged on too long.
Hitler was very angry that so many elite troops were killed around The Hague. That was really for a reason. Germans were also short of planes during the invasion of the Soviet Union. So the long term effect was there for sure. Germany also did not have an unlimited number of airborne troops. You cannot immediately replace all those soldiers who died around The Hague. Requires years of training. In the end they ran out of those troops too. In my opinion, it also had an short term effect. Even if it is in the psychological field of not being invincible.
So you are saying that despite losing half their Junkers 52 fleet in May, they were up and running again in sufficient numbers in August/September for Seelowe? Numbers and source please.
As most Ju52 planes were not shot down but damaged on the ground, either when landing on unsuitable fields or from ground fire, the Germans could retrieve a fair number after the fighting stopped and repair them and cannibalise much of the remainder for parts.
A fact. Most Junkers-52 were shot down over the Netherlands including 1200-1600 Paratroopers , Dutch Air defence was already using Radar guided guns at the Time, the first Country with that Tech available and practically working. Because of the lack of amount of Junkers-52 still available (not to mention the paratroopers slaughtered in downed planes) the invasion of Britain was either cancelled or posponed. Over 200 Junkers-52's including crew were lost... So in all the refinement of using paratroopers was destroyed during the 5 Days of invading the Netherlands...
An amount of JU52 planes that were damaged in May" 40 were collected by the Germans and send to the Fokker aircraft factory in Amsterdam for repair. And returned to service later. They were not " all lost" !
A detail that’s relevant to the conclusion here is that many if not most of the 224 Ju-52 losses were planes that had landed but were unable to move again, and were hence destroyed on the ground by the defenders. (I suspect the photo at 3.42 is a plane from the second Valkenburg assault wave that diverted to land on the beach south of Katwijk, and got stuck in the sand there). So I imagine the conclusion taken at the time was that direct air landing of troops (ie as oppose to paratroopers) was too dangerous against anything more than nominal opposition. Anything beyond that is conjecture, but in the hypothetical that the Netherlands HAD indeed collapsed in 24 hours as Hitler hoped, the Germans might well have been emboldened to go on very quickly to attempt similar air landing of troops in England. Which would very probably have ended badly for them, but just a chance given the element of luck in war that the UK might have folded too.
The majority of losses were the Ju52s... transport aircraft as you say. If you add these losses to the transport planes destroyed in Crete and North Africa, the transport command of the Luftwaffe was effectively unfit for purpose when Operation Barbarossa was launched. Russia had poor roads and the Germans had over 114 different types of trucks in their motor pool in 1940.!! A logistical and spare parts nightmare. A different track gage, scorched earth and few railway lines added to their supply problems. Transport aircraft became essential to supply their advance ,and the aircraft they needed to do this, no longer existed. Logistics were never the strong suit of the German army, as was illustrated by their failure to supply even the most basic needs of the 6 th Army at Stalingrad.
I respect the fact that the Germans lost many transportplanes. The wrecks of the JU-52's were scattered all over the three airfields around The Hague and in the surrounding fields. Many more were not damaged but could not take off from the lowlying, waterlogged pastures where they had made emercency landings. These planes had to be (partly) disassembled in place and were transported via roads to regular airfields where they would be made flyable again. Maybe all these losses were replaced as early as september 1940. I don't know but I find it hard to believe that the Junkers factory was able to churn out or repair more than 100 planes per month in the summer of 1940. What your video fails to mention is the loss in aircrew, paratroopers and trained airborne infantry. More than a thousand Germans who had participated in the landings were taken prisoner and ferried to the UK before the Dutch surrender. In their initial airboirne assault the German Luftwaffe used Flight-instructors to man the operational JU-52's. That signifies a lack of trained personnel to handle these large and complicated flying machines. If you combine the loss of the transports AND the fact that the German airborne-capabilty was seriously hurt by the events in the Netherlands, I can imagine the Germans not considering using paratroops during or just after the Dunkirk-evacuation. If however, they had maintained that capability(by not using the 7th Flieger-division and the 22nd Luftlande-division), they could have used these troops in a surprise attack on the British ports of debarcation in Kent. At that time the British cabinet was divided in it's will to keep on fighting. In real life Churchill prevaled and Britain fought on. If the fictional airborne attack would have taken place, I'm not so sure if the Brits would have fought on...
German Paratroopers landing in a Dover port, full of British soldiers, with no backup coming to help them, would have been a short lived adventure. The Eagle hasn't landed.....
@@ukqwerty999 A full unbloodied German Airborne division, landing at RAF Manston, being resupplied by another Airlanding division could have had considerable influence on the British will to fight. The British cabinet was dvided about the question to fight on or not. Read the book Five Days in May or go and see the movie Darkest Hour. Anthony Eden wanted to sue for peace. If Churchill had not rallied the pubic opinion against him WW2 would have take quite a different route.
@@zeredbaronn You could play the Whataboutery game for a thousand different scenarios. (What if the RAF just strafed all those paratroopers) It doesn't mean anything. Attacking the Russians was completely dumb, they always just throw millions of men into battle whatever the weapons available.
The Battle of Britain was technically an air battle. If operation Sea-lion had commence reduced numbers of transport aircraft would have had an influence. Even then any airborne troops could only have been a small percentage of troops required for an invasion. Given the weather in the North Sea and Chanel when autumn commences it would have been months before before an amphibious invasion could be launched, ie spring 1941. Operation Overlord in 1944 may have had to be cancelled if delayed past July.
Although it was mostly Ju-52 transport planes that were shot down, the small Dutch airforce certainly put up a decent fight. What's interesting is that their Fokker D.XXI fighters did VERY well in the hands of Finnish pilots fighting the Soviets and the type was responsible for many kills.
It was the anti aircraft guns (quite modern ones compared to the rest of the Dutch equipment) that destroyed most of the planes. The German invasion of Denmark and Norway revealed German airborne tactics (taking over airfields and landing further transports) and the Dutch deployed their AA accordingly with many of them stationed around the airfields near Den Haag.
Can't find any record of Dutch pilots serving with the RAF in the Battle of Britain. I know many served in the RAF in coastal command and seem to remember that some planes were flown to England and for a while formed a squadron. The losses of the Kreigsmarine in Norway to Norwegian and British forces could well have been a factor in the cancellation of Sea Lion. They were very significant.
There was a Dutch Coastal Command squadron flying Dorniers, from memory. The Dutch aircraft ceased operations due to the utter lack of spare parts - among other factors.
Nice video and I enjoy watching your channel. Here are my thoughts. It is rarely one factor that can be attributed to events that occur later. This is more so in war. Did the 107 downed combat planes contribute to the Battle of Britain? Every plane counted, though the effect would be minor. During the invasion of Norway, the Reich’s Navy incurred significant losses. Losses that could not afford for operation Sea Lion. These losses would put increased focus on the air invasion. In Norway, Holland and Belgium, their were uneven successes. I am sure the destroyed air transports and the efforts of the Dutch forces to engage the Fallschirmjäger contributed to Hitler’s decision not to invade Great Britain. So, while not making direct contributions to the Battle of Britain (and air Battle), the efforts did contribute to keeping Britain in the war and helping defeat the Nazis.
On the 13th of May, obergefreiter Müller lost his sidearm in Amsterdam. It was stolen by the resistance. This way Müller couldnt defend himself in Stalingrad 42. So in a way the dutch resistance contributed to......😂😂😂
Nice video, and I support you’ re conclusion. I have a few remarks; 1. Another important reason that Seelowe was cancelled is that the Germans had not Enough landingcrafts, had no experience in landings on shores and were afraid of intervention of the large English Fleet. (Airsupperiority would have helped to minimalize this). 2. The Germans did perform a few airlandings later on in the war but on a small scale. The most succesfull was the landing of gliders on the Gran Sasso under command of Otto Skorzeny to free Mussolini. 3. It is indeed typical that the allies continued to use paratroopers on D-Day, operation Market Garden and the crossing of the Rhine. It is not clear to me if they learned the lessons of the German droppings. If you look at Market Garden, I would say “No”.
In de Engelse versie van De Slag om de Residentie (The Battle for The Hague) van Brongers staat een voorwoord van een Britse militair historicus die jouw stelling dat de Duitse verliezen aan vliegtuigen en bemanning nadrukkelijk tegenspreekt en verklaart dat die wel degelijk van grote invloed zijn geweest op de Battle of Brittain. Ik heb die Engelse versie toevallig maar ik ga dat hier niet uitgebreid uittypen. De Luftwaffe werkte in mei 1940 op de top van haar mogelijkheden vanwege de inzet van alle piloten en bemanningen tegen Frankrijk, België en Britse aanwezigheid daar. Voor de Junkers moesten ze daarom terugvallen op de inzet van het overgrote deel van de Duitse vlieginstructeurs. Die werden voor het overgrote deel gedood of gevangen genomen zodat de Luftwaffe de hele oorlog last heeft gehad van de aanvulling van verliezen. Ook de Duitse Luftwaffebevelhebber Kesselring heeft na de oorlog in Nürnberg verklaard dat de Duitse verliezen van mei 1940 aan de mislukking van de Slag om Engeland.
I would think the big affect would have been at the pilot training pipeline, where replacement pilots are being sent to transport units instead of going into reserve for fighter and bomber aircraft. This would create serious disruption when they are not available or must be retrained for combat Arms aircraft. Additionally the effect on the Luftwaffe logistics line would have been significant as the transport are not available to deliver priority Luftwaffe equipment and parts to Fighter and Bomber aircraft as the Battle of Britain heats up. The loss of so many trained air crew would have been a real problem. Not to mention you will have to devote an entire line of the Junkers factory to replacing the lost transport aircraft. Even if the number 100 doesn’t sound like a lot, imagine a field with 100 large planes on it and all have three engines and three crew. Wow, replacing that is going to take some time, especially if you want them trained to pre-war levels.
Ik heb wel eens begrepen dat net voor de caputilatie van Nederland er nog een behoorlijk aantal gevangen Duitse paratroopers naar Engeland zijn afgevoerd. En dat dat een gevoelige knauw heeft gegeven aan de hoeveelheid paratroopers die toen beschikbaar waren voor de Duitsers.
@@HistoryHustle Stefan could you perhaps do a video exploring what would have happened if Market Garden had in fact worked ? For all I know the reason why the risk was taken to execute the operation is that the reward would be that the British and Americans would get to Berlin before the Russians and end the war sooner. If you have the resources, it's always an option. A very costly and high risk option because there are so many factors beyond your control, but an option nonetheless.
The Brits certainly learned. They used more and larger gliders. They arrived with their own transport and antitank guns. The British and American paratroopers jumped fully armed. The British and American used parachutes were superior over the first German used parachutes. The troopers were less likely to suffer landing injuries. Fun fact. The German paratroopers and their equiptment transported to Britain gave the British a basis to start with their own paratroop equiptment. They actually copied the boots and jump uniform at first.
@@jimomaha7809 Yet they encountered the same problems as the German airborme troops around The Hague in 1940: They had to hold out against more heavily armed ground forces for too long... And relieve forces that tried to join up over land and arrived too late...
@@Franky46Boy Nearly every airborne operation means landing behind enemy lines. Surrounded by a (larger) enemy and waiting for friendly ground troops woth armour. Most ww2 airborne operations was about bridges. 1940 Germans = 2 airborne divisions and not even up to full strength. During battle several airlanding troop aircraft had to return. Market= 3 full airborne divisions. Allies used more aircraft /gliders to land troops. German airlanding operations failed in the sense they did not managed to capture the government. 1940 airborne was a sub operation to conquer The Netherlands. Market was a main operation to conquer bridges and a passage to Germany. 1940 By bombarding Rotterdam the battle was won. The Dutch wanted to prevent further damage. The allies had a different goal, and not the same options.
I think it's possible that more Dutch and Belgium soldiers where killed fighting for the Germans in the army and SS then were killed defending in 1940. Would be interested in the correct numbers.
224! "Tante Ju" losses was at least a 3rd of their total transports, and @ Stalingrad, in '43, Von Paulus might have been able to hold-out another week or three, if the transports lost in Holland had been incrementally lost aiding resupply for a breakout/further resistance there. Manstein got within 40 miles of punching through the Russian encirclement of Stalingrad. Those transports might have allowed him to split the encircling Soviet forces, such that a half/third of the Stalingrad Axis might have broken-out, meaning 80-60 thousand to oppose the Russian "Bagration" a year & a half later, or if reinforcing Operation Zitadele, might have led to an earlier [summer'43]victory @ Kursk! Bagration's failure, [--if it had occured, it collapsed Army group cntr] might have maintained Army group center for a few more months, meaning Bradley, Patton & Montgomery might have attacked & Reduced Berlin, saving a lot of German women from being raped at the city's fall. I think one could say that the Dutch shoot-down of 224 Ju-52s could have prevented a German victory in the East, thereby also shortening the war by 3-6 months, plus saving the 8th Air force and the RAF bomber force, because in 3-6 months, the Heinkle He-162 "Volksjager" would've been operational, plus More 262s, the Bachem Natter 349 area-defense rocket,--possibly a handful of the Gotha Go 222s,--faster and as powerful as a 262[--invisible to allied radar!].--these would have swept the 8th air force from the skies, even if they "switched" to B-29s. Berlin probably would have been Nuked. So, yeah, the "Yer Not much, if yer NOT Dutch" Ju-52 massacre by the 1940 Dutch, made an Allied victory in Europe Probable, if not faintly possible. The Germans learned nothing about protecting their transports, as they got "beat-up" in Greece, months later. That's what I say, and I'm sticking to it. So sez Jek Silberstein.
Did the Dutch contribute to the Battle of Britain? Not directly 320 Squadron and 321 Squadron. These units had been assigned to Coastal Command using Fokker T-VIIIW seaplanes and crewed by Dutch naval flying personnel. Dutch naval flying personnel in Britain only flew under the British flag in an operational sense. In administrative terms, they were under their own command and continued to wear their own navy uniforms. As for german air combat losses in May 1940 the vast majority of JU-52s lost were not due to air to air combat or anti-aircraft fire. Most were lost in the battles for The Hague airfields (Ypenburg, Valkenburg, and Ockenburg) paratroopers were dropped around these airfield and tasked with their capture which would allow the planes carrying the 22nd Air Landing Division (Wehrmacht) to land. The airfields at Ypenburg and Ockenburg, the paratroopers had not secured the field when the transports began landing. Valkenburg, which was not yet complete in May 1940 the unfinished surface of the airfield meant that many planes were wrecked and none could take off again from the swampy ground. With the runways of all 3 airfields blocked all remaining aircraft had to crash land in fields or land in any suitable area due to lack of fuel. Subsuquent Dutch counter attacks, bombing and shelling damaged or destroyed many of the aircraft that survived the intital landing intact. Damaged Ju52s were repaired at the Fokker factory at schiphol. Due to losses suffered by the luftwaffe air transport arm in the netherlands plus losses sustained in France and belgium its is likely they the effects were felt for the duration of the war but unlikely to have had a significant effect on the outcome of the war. While the military impact on the war effort by by Dutch and Dutch colonial forces were minor however the Dutch merchant fleet played an important role. It also has to be noted and it is something commonly overlooked is the critical role that the Dutch Antilles and suriname played in winning the war, 80% of all the aviation fuel used by the allies was produced in refineries located in the dutch antilles and Aluminium from Suriname’s bauxite was used in the construction of around 60% of all allied planes.
Although we did not have much effect on the outcome of the battle of Britain, we did do a very good job with the limited resources we had. Our air force was small and did not have the modern planes that Germany had. Nevertheless we did bring a reasonable amount of planes down. The Germans could have had a better result in the battle of Britain if they would have kept their focus on attacking airfields instead of switching to bombing cities. The British maybe had enough planes, but did not have enough well trained pilots. This can be seen by the large amount of foreign pilots they accepted. Weer een mooie video. Ga zo door. En ik ben nog steeds erg benieuwd naar waar je die jas vandaan hebt. Ik ben zelf op zoek naar een Nederlands uniform jasje, maar kan niets vinden. Je breekt je nek over Duits, maar wil graag net zo'n jasje als waar mijn opa in gelopen heeft gedurende de mobilisatie.
@@HistoryHustle thanks! gek dat die niet in mijn searches naar boven is gekomen. Ik zie hem beter in jouw video dan op de foto van de site. haha. ziet er goed uit.
certainly losses incurred during the May-June Blitzkreig contributed .. but the Germans and the British equally lost hundreds of aircraft and experienced crews.... by the time Britain stood alone awaiting the German onslaught its home defence forces were in a perilous state. we still have the Royal Navy ofc and several hundred fighters and light bombers ready to resist. modern history though seems to credit the victory of the Battle of Britain to everyone and everything except the British .. the times we live in .
Interesting. Could you make a film about the psychological effect of RAF and US bomber aircraft flying out and back , being shot down and baling out over the occupied Netherlands. The brilliant 1970s TV series Secret Army tells the stories of the airmen going down the ' life line' , to get back to Britain via Iberia. Was it any different from Belgium, give the strength of fascist sympathisers in parts 9f the Netherlands and Flanders . I know that the stupid Netherlands section of the SOE in Baker Street, sent scores of agents into the Netherlands to be roundrd up by the Germans through the Englandspiel infaltraton by the Abwher and Gestapo. Were airmen sheltered by the Netherlands populations ,iike many in Brussels and Wallonia , or were many betrayed to the occupiers, as they had few ways of getting them out. RAF bomber command lost 55,000 men , including sirmen from all around the globe , including the Netherlands and Friesland. Please no more wining about Dresden, the tragedy of 25,000 people dying , equating to a couple of weeks work in the Nazi death and concentration camps and death marches.
Whether or not the Dutch contributed to the Battle of Britian? is irrelevant. As a Brit, if the Dutch managed to shoot down one fighter or one bomber, that was one less that we had to deal with and for that, they should be thanked.
Before you enter battle, you probably have an an acceptable losses number for men and machines. The Germans suffered more loses in Poland than I had always imagined. No doubt the loses were so significant on the German side that instead of a westward attack in April, they waited a month and attacked in May. They needed that month to replenish men and machines. They were expecting large losses. The Poles had a large army, but it was hardly modern. They knew the West had a large armed forces, but also knew it was more modern than Poland. Their expectations of loss probably increased the winter of 1939-40. While Dutch and other forces inflicted a lot of casualties, I think they were fine with that. The Germans underestimated, but luck chased the BEF to Dunkirk faster than expected. No doubt a lot was left behind, but they failed to destroy the BEF. Unsure how much equipment was still in Britain and taking more than expected themselves, Germany was in no shape to take on Britain. They settled and prepared for Hitler's personal agenda in the USSR. Personally I would have continued the air war, kept replenishing and hit Britain before Pearl Harbor. By then the USSR would have been in conflict with Japan. Let USSR fight two fronts makes a lot more sense than Germany fighting on two fronts. Hitler was stupid and had too much personally against his enemies. Don't take things personally and do stupid things in a hurry. That was Hitler's biggest flaw.
I think you need to look futher than the Battle of Britain. As mentioned below somewhere; its very doubtfull if there were serious plans top conquer Britain at all, the Battle of Britain in my view is to be seen as an effort to demolish the RAF and this only for the reason to get a peace treaty and therefore get Britain out of the war. The losses to the JU-52 transport planes did have an effect in the Russian campaign: In several cases the German Airforce were needed to supply cut of troops, most famous is the Battle of Stalingrad. One of the main problems in supplying those troops were the lack of transport planes (JU-52) with sufficient supplies. For the encircled 6th Army there was a relief plan which also needed a break out attempt of that 6th Army but they needed to be resupplied with enough amo and fuel to do so. The amount needed to keep the 6th Army fighting (for active fighting you need a lot more than for defensive actions) was never met. When the Germans would have enough JU-52 planes they could have get more supplies in (surely in combination with the losses to JU-52 planes suffered at Crete). I will not say that if the Germans had way more JU-52 planes available the 6th Army could have been saved but its a fact that needed resupply did never happen even at minimal quantities. Even if you do not look at Stalingrad; during the war in Russia logistics was allways the main issue for the Germans, then it did surely help that the Germans lost many hundreds of transport planes.
The invasion of the Soviet Union is sure something I'm gonna dive into in the future. Actually there were very serious plans to invade England. I do believe that on the historical research I've studied.
Germany produced more than 4.500 Ju-52s for the Luftwaffe and of course also other transport airplanes, thus the loss of the roughly 224 Ju-52s in the Netherlands was probably not that important later in the war when the production was significantly higher than previously to the war.
@@HingerlAlois Thats not quite correct, at the outbreak of WW2 there were about 550 JU-52 available and production numbers were between 1939 and 1944, 2,804 Ju 52s (1939: 145; 1940: 388; 1941: 502; 1942: 503; 1943: 887; and 1944: 379), the number you are refering to are total build including post war and pre war in use as commercial planes. Also take in account Crete as a major loss for those planes. To end: there are reports stating that the losses in the invasion of the netherlands were 295 JU 52 planes, but maybe the number mentioned in the video are corrected by later repaired ones, nevertheless: almost a year worth of production lost will have hurt.
@@HistoryHustle I dont want to start a game of yes the would or no the could not but i think youre wrong on the subject of Sealion. The Germans had nothing to invade with (no landing ships, a very small navy compared with the Royal Navy (totally intact at that time) and even more: Sealion could not take place as the Germans were planning to invade Russia, a 2 front fight in that scale was not an option for the Germans. There was no actual plan to invade, Halder (chief of staf German high command) had to made up a plan when to the Germans own surprise France was beaten very fast and that plan was no way a serious plan which actually could ever been carry out. Hitler also stated in a meeting in 1940 (after the fall of France) that the political bluff of invading England was important and therefore to keep it believable the preparations were to continue but resources and troops were ment for the invasion of Russia. But as said, not intended for a who is right discussion: keep up the video's, I enjoy them.
Hello History Hustle, leuke video's maak je. Toch moet ik hier wel wat over zeggen. Dat jij van Amersfoort hierin volgt dat de duitse vliegtuigen die neergeschoten zijn boven Nederland geen impact hadden op de slag om Engeland vind ik erg jammer. Ook niet erg terecht. Ten eerste staat van Amersfoort bekend als een enorm criticaster als het gaat om mei 1940. Nogal boude uitspraken doet hij in zijn boeken, als je weet dat die man ergens in de jaren 50 geboren is en de oorlog niet zelf heeft meegemaakt. "de beste stuurlui staan aan wal".. Dat de vliegtuigen die boven Nederland neergeschoten zijn enkel transportvliegtuigen waren en geen vechtvliegtuigen is waar. Maar de Duitsers wilden ook met luchtlandingen komen nadat men de slag boven Engeland gewonnen had. Tevens waren veel bemanningen die boven Nederland neergeschoten waren en dood of POW de enige die leraren waren van andere piloten. Dus zou je kunnen stellen dat het materialistisch gezien geen invloed had maar menselijk wel. Voor de rest heb ik Brongers zijn boeken gelezen en hij is veel genuanceerder dan wat jij stelt in dit filmpje. Maar voor de rest, een goede video!
Dank voor je bericht. Waar Van Amersfoort bekend staat als criticaster, staat Brongers bekend als iemand die iedere Nederlandse soldaat een heldenstatus toedicht. Ik beschouw mijn bron, die ook andere bronnen aanhaalt als betrouwbaar. Je kunt deze ook online bekijken dus voel je vrij het artikel te lezen.
@@HistoryHustle Dat klopt ja. Brongers overdrijft soms. Maar liever iemand die zo in het leven staat dan iemand die niks heeft meegemaakt en dan vuil uithaalt naar anderen. Toen hij amper droog achter de oren was was hij al zo kritisch op het Nederlandse leger. Terwijl (volgens Brongers) de buitenlandse kenners van WOII veel positiever zijn. Vooral over de slag om den Haag en hoeveel vliegtuigen men naar beneden heeft geschoten (of beneden aangekomen kapot schoten).
Kwestie van welke historische visie je hebt. Denk niet dat Amersfoort iets persoonlijk tegen de soldaten heeft. Hij maakte wel een uitglijder waarover toen nog een zaak is geweest. Ben de naam van die veteraan vergeten. Hij heeft er nog een boek over geschreven...Had je deze al gezien? Denk dat je die wel waardeert: ruclips.net/video/lGLmxN8hx7o/видео.html
Als je ziet dat de Duitsers zelfs een paar italianen hebben laten komen om te helpen bij de battle of Britain..dan denk ik dat ze elke piloot/vliegtuig nodig hadden facebook.com/worldwarincolor/photos/a.393169424146189/2604544819675294/?type=3&theater
Ten eerste; erg gave filmpjes, zat ik op te wachten. Ik heb een aantal jaren terug een vierdelige serie gezien over de luchtmacht in de meidagen. Over vliegvelden die niet ontdekt werden door de Duitsers vanwaar wij opstegen om een hit and run te doen over de duitse luchtlandingsplaatsen. Daar zijn erg veel duitse transportvliegtuigen vernietigd. Ik kom alleen niet meer op de titel van die serie. Op history toen dat nog goed was
@@HistoryHustle Gevonden!! Vaak zonder resultaat naar gezocht, maar nu heb ik hem! Dit zou hem moeten zijn: De Mei-vliegers van Hans Vos. Zijn twee delen blijkt nu, en was in 2009 op National Geographic. Is te koop als 2e hands als boek met dvd. Is echt een aanrader!!
Only the losses of transport planes is mentioned(Ju 52's)... but the paratroopers where in that planes...if these very slow planes should endure an atack by a Spitfire or Hurricane wich were both armed with 8 machine guns, almost no paratroopers should have survived such an attack...the metal skin of airplanes don't give any protection against bullets! I think the Germans did consider that to be the biggest risk to carry out a airborne assault.
Sorry to burst you bubble but the attack on the Netherands was but a small part of the attack. Most went through Belgium and the Ardennen. We did not hinder those armies in the slightest I fear. Sure we kept a part of the German army occupied for 5 days. But the German Blitzkrieg proved unstoppable and we ended up with Engand fleeing at Dunkirque andf Belgium and France being occupied.
4 года назад+1
@@gerlofwoudstra8341 Yes, but no. The terrorbombing of Rotterdam was ordered because stiff Dutch resistance, far more than planned originally, had put the northern thrust of the Germans in danger of being overrun by the French field army and the BEF. This would've meant a scenario where Germany had no troops between the allies and the Ruhr area, while that would've been within 1-2 weeks of marching. They would've needed to stop the entire invasion of France and Belgium by being outflanked that bad. While in itself minor, the strategic implications were much bigger in the 'almost didn't lose' of 1940. Remember that even most German generals were surprised at winning like they did. They had expected the war in France would've lasted months and months, with hordes of British pouring in WW1 style as well. Losing was also on the table at the time.
Blah b There was no danger of the Germans being 'overrun by the French field army and the BEF'. Their plan was to sit behind their defences and showed very little aggressive action thanks to their leadership. The time to attack the Germans was when they were still in Poland which the French successfully did but were recalled by their leadership. If any country can lay claim to effecting the outcome of the Battle of Britain, it's the Poles who not only inflicted heavy losses on the Germans but those who then served in the RAF, had an big impact.
4 года назад+1
@@frankanderson5012 Yeah, thanks for your attempt with your 30-secs-on-wikipedia knowledge, but unfortunately the French had crossed the Dutch border, causing a panic which lead to the terrorbombing of Rotterdam. At 10 may in the evening the Groupe Lestoquoi contact with colonel Schmidt who was in charge of Dutch-French liasons and the regional commander of Brabant. Which looked like so on the map: www.zuidfront-holland1940.nl/index.php?page=photo&pid=4749 As for the rest, what complete and utter nonsense. You're a Polish law&justice supporter aren't you? German manpower in Poland 2 million Losses 59K That's 2,95% losses. German manpower in the Netherlands 280.000 Losses 9032 That's 3,2% losses The Dutch army inflicted heavier losses on the Germands than the Polish army did. We also didn't provide them with a great casus belli through brutal ethnic against ethnic Germans, effected by a savage fascist regime which ruled Poland at the time. Can you imagine Hitler getting a war by saying "But those Dutch make cheese the wrong way!!!"? No, me neither. Such a thing requires saying things like "Thousands of our people were treated savagely by these horrible racist Polish dictators after 1918 and they stole our land. We Germans must have justice"
The German got pilot training, practice, the quality of fighters and fighting formations correct and got so many things wrong. Of course it helped that the Dutch shot down these aircraft
I disagree, a lot. Even while you can debate if it had a decisive influence, it most certainly has had a significant influence. Also the Dutch navy and merchant ships that escaped helped evacuate the British troops at Dunkirke. The main point of ciritcism I have is that you too easily dismiss the Dutch efforts and their effectiveness; I think this biass comes from taking the outcome of 'militairy defeat' first, and selecting the events to go with this narrative. This is not scientificly sound. The Dutch were not defeated in military battle. If you would change the format by just taking a complete sequence of the events and give them more in detail, and another story emerges. The Germans had to divert tank troops meant for Belgium operations to the Netherlands. They lost thousands of elite paratroops on a failed mission to capture the Dutch government, designed and supervised by Hitler himself. I also miss the destruction of armoured trains. The Dutch defense was effectively bringing the German offensive to a grinding halt, even if they broke through the first and secondary defenses, the Vesting Holland was not taken yet. The Germans were slowed down, stalled even to the point where Hitler and Goering got immensely frustrated and resorted to firebomb the inner cities civil populations. This lead directly to militairy capitulation, which makes sense because what use is a defense force if the people are sacrificed for it? The German reputation for cilivian slaughter had long been set with Warsaw, etc.. So the Dutch knew very well it was no hollow threat form the Germans to bomb Utrecht too. Fighting such a lawless and evil force is militairly impossible without an airforce and airdefense of cities. So, even while militarily the Dutch army could never have won the battle in 1940, they did have a pretty solid defense and even defensive improvisation skills. Eventually the German tankforce would have also broke through, but they might have even been slowed down some more and would have suffered big losses. We will never know, will we? But this is the problem, war is not a fair game where everyone follows the rules. Also, even if there was military surrender, under French and Belgian command, resistance by Dutch troops in the province Zeeland and Zeeuws-vlaanderen went on until may 25.
The argument that was made for the Dutch influencing the outcome of the Battle of Britain was exclusively based on the number of aircraft shot down during the defense of the Netherlands. THAT argument is invalid, for the reasons Stefan mentions (though the losses in transport aircraft could have had an effect on the postponement of the invasion plans, which eventually led to their cancellation, but I don't think the invasion would have happened anyway as the required air superiority over the south of England was never achieved by the Germans).
CaptainDuckman these are really theoretics based on limited set of facts, assumptions and deliberatly low interpretations of the numbers to support some preferred outcome, you just can adjust the facts or the hypothesis after the results let you down, that is really sloppy science. For the sake of argument I could entertain you with more detail but I suggest you do your own research. It is not a game and I don’t enjoy a lengthy discussion.
Hello Henk, thank you for your exentensive comment. I see we agree on a lot of things. As for the armoured train. These weren't in need for the Battle of Britain. This video focuses on planes. By the way, have you seen my video about when the Dutch were successful during May 1940: ruclips.net/video/lGLmxN8hx7o/видео.html
It is my understanding that Germany committed too many pilot-instructors to take part in the invasion of the Netherlands and this is where the luftwaffe was hampered. Not their ability to replace the planes but their ability to train enough new pilots to make use of those planes. In other words, the Dutch shot an unexpected high number of flying-experience out of the air and this was not so easily replaced.
First of I hate how you pronouce the Dutch :-) I think like in the battle of Britain one should not look at the numbers of planes lost, but the number of crews lost. Germany was in War Production mode and had no shortages at that time, Any losses in material could be easily replaced. I never considered the effect on the Batlle of Britain, and you are probably right in your conclusion. however did the losses and the extra time needed to subdue the Netherlands have an effect on the battle in France? Ps still proud of our pilots however you look at it they did more damage then could have been expected of them
GERMAN INVASION OF THE NETHERLANDS: ruclips.net/video/_IIsY664tE4/видео.html
GERMAN EFFECTIVENESS IN MAY 1940: ruclips.net/video/o-dBkEqdq-o/видео.html
DUTCH EFFECTIVENESS IN MAY 1940: ruclips.net/video/lGLmxN8hx7o/видео.html
Thank you ❤💕🌹 I thought the expierienced pilots of lost were more worth than the planes in the long run 👀 books.google.nl/books?id=NDwRBQAAQBAJ&pg=PT90&lpg=PT90&dq=kesselring+dutch+losses&source=bl&ots=X9sV1NAWAo&sig=ACfU3U2WQH8DW7S7knfR3A3_VdVg480hyw&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj8hJPZkt7nAhUNsaQKHZQzDlgQ6AEwA3oECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=kesselring%20dutch%20losses&f=false
Good video!
Thanks!
so sorry fo the mistake, I did only see it now, I meant 1940 (of course) not 1945.
@@doctorandusB no problem
Since you mentioned the Polish, Czech, and French pilots fighting in England, during the 42 days of what is now considered the Battle of Britain, a single Polish Squadron 303 shot down 126 German planes. That gives you an idea of the scale of that battle. Salute to all that fought!
"Bloody foreigners: Untold Battle of Britain" is a documentary about the big influence the Polish fighter pilots had during the Battle of Britain. Not only did they shoot down more planes than the other squadrons, they also suffered significantly lower losses.
Special mention of Josef Frantisek. Originally a Czech pilot, he fled after the Nazis took over, joined the Polish Airforce and fought during the Battle of Poland. After the defeat, he escaped the Germans again and joined the French Foreign Legion (they wouldn't let him join the French Airforce).
Following the French defeat, he moved to Great Britain and ended up rejoining his Polish comrades in one of the Free Polish RAF Squadrons. He was a brilliant fighter pilot but would often leave formation to hunt German planes on his own.
After a few arguments, it was decided he was allowed to remain with the squadron and was also allowed to go off hunting alone.
Sadly, he was shot down and killed on 8 October 1940, a few weeks after the Battle of Britain. 17 confirmed kills.
@@AudieHolland Yes, I saw that documentary, it was very good. František also figured prominently in the book "Squadron 303" by Arkady Fiedler.
Thanks for the additional information.
@@HistoryHustle besides the documentary, they made a movie about it, called 'Squadron 303' which is pretty acurate. You can say without any doubt that they played an important role in the battle of England. How much the influence was of the Dutch is hard to tell, but I guess if they didn't shot down those planes, the nazis had more material to use for the battle of England. Another thing is that (like you said) that they were complaining about shortages in the begining (transportation planes) so it gave England more time too to produce planes and other weapons. So yes it wasn't negative for England but when it comes to figures I honestly don't know.
I Think that Stefan mainly focuses in dutch ww2 history. For international subjects you van check out Mark Felton Productions or World War Two
I remember this line from the movie "A Bridge Too Far." Where General Gavin is talking to his Dutch liaison officer about jumping into a region named Nijmegen and showing his misgivings about the operation. He referred to the German drop in 1940 which he stated "got slaughtered." It showed it wasn't as easy as the Germans made it look.
Thanks for your message.
Also remember dutch forces where only ordered to surrender after the bombing of Rotterdam and threat of doing the same to the other larger cities , after 5 days.-7 if counting the battle of zeeland.
The British army was routed and pussed back in the sea at dunkirk in less then then 2 weeks as the invasion started at the 10th of may the evacuation of britisch troops at dunkirk started the 21st of may.
Yes a good reference to what really happened..
Thank you for covering my question more extensively. It did spark quite the debate. Bedankt en de groeten.
Thanks and you're welcome!
HH, Great contribution to this rather unknown part of WW2. Very informative and a honest view of it. Thx! And please make more!
Thank you, you've already seen the other videos?
GERMAN INVASION OF THE NETHERLANDS: ruclips.net/video/_IIsY664tE4/видео.html
GERMAN EFFECTIVENESS IN MAY 1940: ruclips.net/video/o-dBkEqdq-o/видео.html
DUTCH EFFECTIVENESS IN MAY 1940: ruclips.net/video/lGLmxN8hx7o/видео.html
Although I started to learn about WW2 since leaving the Bavarian Alps in 2000, where I worked for the US Armed Forces. I knew little of the Dutch influence (if any) Glad to know that they did what they could, as I lived in Holland too for a short while and knew many dutch and had a Dutch girlfriend, when I was younger, in the 70s/80s.
Excellent episode with excellent questions answered concisely. I hope you will make an episode on the Dutch Resistance
Thanks! The Dutch resistance will be talked about in the future. Can't tell when though.
Hoi stefan!, kun je een keer een filmpje maken over de NSB of de Nederlands vrijwilligers in de SS? Je video's zijn echt tof :)
Staat op de planning. Moet nog wel de boeken aanschaffen en lezen.
een film over verraders, ga ze dan niet ophemelen
@@mangekyoubyakugan5913 Het is geschiedenis.
@@mangekyoubyakugan5913 hoe bedoel je veraders sommigen waren al lid van de nsb voor dat Hitler überhaupt veel macht kreeg in Duitsland het was gewoon een politieke partij zoals de PVV of groen links maar nu vergeet men dat vaak dus nee geen veraders
@@teddybear2587 idd
Thanks for nuancing my reaction to your recent video about the invasion of the Netherlands Stefan. Keep up the good work. Love your videos.
You're welcome!
Military commentator's consensus exist that the Germans cruelly lacked transport planes during the battle of Crete both for the initial assault as for the resupply. The losses inflicted by the Dutch definitely contributed to this situation. German paratroopers where so beaten up at Crete that the final victory was fought by the Gebrigsjäger (mountain troops) ferried in mainly by sea. Also, the lack of transport planes caused the failure of the resupply by air of the encircled Stalingrad and contributed to the German loss of this battle. Groetjes uit Zwitseland!
Thanks for the additional insights, Rob!
It was more the encirclement of Demjansk, Stalingrad was already out of Transportplanes.
@@conny5296 Yes, the Demjansk air-bridge was a further step in the attrition of the German air transport fleet. But strangely enough, it was the Demjansk operation that convinced some, including Göring himself, that Stalingrad could be supplied from the air. But by then, the air transport capacity had dwindled to the point of being incapably of keeping up with demands, especially in the face of the strengthening Soviet air power.
@@robendert7617 exactly. I think crete was around 500 transport planes involved while Stalingrad was around 200 but you need to remeber try supply 500k people with only 200 planes.
Nice video, in my opinion both Belgian and Dutch armies (650k and 750k if I remember correctly) played a significant role in 1940. It's good that you bring more attention to this less known parts of history. For example Luftwaffe lost 20-25% of it's power during the Polish campaign, Wehrmacht also lost closely 1/5 of tanks, and basically noone knows about it.
That many ? Are you sure? Can imagine a lot of volunteers joined the fight, but don't think that many weapons were available.
@@ysinvangulik1004 for the tanks it was a 23% casualty rate. This included damaged ones, altough 23% is still very impressive
In the beginning German army was unstoppable, unfortunately of course. Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, France to some extant U.K, later Greece and Yugoslavia. In the first stages of Barbarossa even Soviet Army was defenseless against blitzkrieg, USSR lost millions of POW's in months. What halted German offensive was in big part the Russian winter. Considering that, inflicting damage as heavy as the Netherlands or Poland did is quite an achievement.
@@pacthug4life ah yes, the typical wehraboo that says the germans lost because of the Russian winter. Do you really think cold weather stopped "the unstoppable german army"? There were many more important factors involved
@@nathantop8561 was refering to the amount of people in the dutch and Belgian army 600k +
Its good to hear somone talking about pre barbrosa it seems ww2 historians are always talking about the eastern front and just fly over the campaigns that secured Europe as their jump off point. thank you!
You're welcome!
If you look at the total JU52 losses in The Netherlands and Crete, That's a lot of aircraft that weren't available for the Russian campaign. This could have had an effect on the outcome at Stalingrad and the campaign for the oil fields. Would be interesting to look at the numbers.
Definitely something for the future, thanks for letting me know!
Love your channel and your passion! Keep on going! I live in Friesland, lots of plane wrecks here and even a forest where V2’s were launched. One exploded in this forest during launch, I would love to see if there are any parts left. Metal detecting has become so much better and cheaper. Best regatds, Bert
Interesting. Thanks for sharing, Bert!
The Germans could have used a few more operational transport planes at Stalingrad, and in the North African campaign. In both of these critical battles, the lack of transport planes proved an important factor.
Thanks for sharing this.
THIS, exactly this!!!
Top video Stefan. Vind het leuk dat ik er iets aan toe kon voegen.
Yes, enorm bedankt voor je foto's!
Stefan - another excellent video. They always are well balanced and objective.
Thank you, Mark!
This is exciting for me to even learn about the Dutch destruction of German Aircraft during this phase of WWII and that it may have influenced later German War planning decisions! You are great at making sense of the interactions and outcomes of WWII!
👍
I like your channel, and in this session, I like your gear. Your helmet usually called "topi tuan opsir" in Indonesian.
And the WW2 finally opening our door to Independence. However I salute to all Dutch fighters who fought the Nazi's.
Thanks for your reply 👍
I was waiting for this one!
Cool! Hope you liked it:)
Even with limited air superiority the Jerry's wouldn't have been able to invade the UK, the UK Navy ruled the seas and that included the English Channel. Paratroopers were used by the US, Canadian and UK forces very effectively in WWII, but when they jumped they were jumping fully armed and with reserve ammunition. When the Jerry's jumped, they were unarmed and had to retrieve their weapon boxes that were tossed out at the same time their jumpers went out. The Jerry's took a lot of killed/wounded, especially in Create jumping in that configuration.
Air superiority means bye bye boats...
Thanks for sharing your insights.
Ookal ben ik nog niet heel lang geabonneerd, kijk ik wel je video's over Nederland in ww2.
Ik vind dit echt tof maar kan je AUB een video maken van de Nederlandse luchtmacht of marine in ww2? Het zou echt te gek zijn
Leuk om te horen. Binnenkort komen er weer wat andere onderwerpen aan bod. Daarna zal NL in WOII weer opgepikt worden.
Kan je het boek "Oorlogsvlieger van Oranje" geschreven door Bob van der Stok aanbevelen. Beter dan video.
@@jurriaanthemmen ik heb het opgezocht en het is wel een interessant boek, dankje
@@HistoryHustle ooh Ik kijk er nu al naar uit👍😀
As a tourguide in the Aviodrome airplane museum in Lelystad (I'm talking about pre-Covid times of course) I always tell the people in my tourgroups that the losses of the Luftwaffe in the Netherlands did not influence the outcome of the Battle of Britain much (some videos and texts in the museum make that claim) but that the losses of the Ju-52's may have had some effect on the supplying of the Arikakorps and the 6th army in Stalingrad, and the attack on Crete.
Come to think of it though: the heavy losses of the Luftwaffe were not limited to the battle of the Netherlands alone, they also suffered heavy casualties over Belgium and France. The Luftwaffe was used a lot in the Western campaign and did a lot of damage to the allies, but with that come the inevitable losses: about 2000 planes, based on a quick calculation using wikipedia data. Obviously that must have weakened the Luftwaffe before the Battle of Britain.
Thanks for sharing your insights on this.
Very interesting never really knew this!
Thanks!
Dutch AAA was pretty good during WW2. Was the only branch who had great efficiency.
They did well.
The fact that the German changed their use of Paratroops after the Battle of Crete (May 1941) rather than after the invasion of the low Countries (May 1940), to me indicates that Crete was the point at which tactical use of Paratroopers changed, but opertion Seelow was scheduled for Sept 1940, before Crete, so the same tactics would have been used over Britian - which in turn indicates any lessons learned by Germany had no influence on the invasion plans - But a thought provoking video just the same and its always good to see events fom a different national perspective
Thanks for your insights Dave.
Excellent topic, the German loss of their transport aircraft was something that upset Herr Hitler than the other aircraft. Apparently the manufacture of these transport aircraft was expensive and took longer toreplace. Brilliant subject
The best story I was told was from an American sniper who fought in WWII in Europe. He told me that at one point the Americans were fighting the Germans across a small river in France, and the Germans were well dug in. The Americans brought up 3 tank destroyers to destroy a blockhouse across the river (just after daylight). My friend climbed up a ladder into a French barn so he could get a better view and possibly do a little sniping. The tank destroyers fired and destroyed the blockhouse. Meanwhile the Germans replied with some mortar fire, and one of the mortar shells went through the roof of the barn and imbedded in the floor between my friend’s feet! He figured that the mortar round was one that had been manufactured by the French or European slave laborers that the Germans used in the captured armaments factories. They were always sabotaging the ammunition, were sometimes caught, and executed immediately if caught. Anyway, he was always appreciative of the resistance fighters because their sabotage saved his life. He survived and returned to the US, and was 95 years old the last time I saw him several years ago.
Thanks for sharing.
I did hear that the shortage of transport planes caused by the battle of the Netherlands and Crete may have contributed to the defeat of the germans during the battle of Stalingrad as the surounded germans were supplied by air.
Interesting point. I believe I saw a video of TIK history who concluded supplying the German 6th Army was a lost cause anyway. With their lack of fuel (since the Germans did manage to succeed to capture the Caucasus oil fields) it wasn't possible to begin with.
Another factor in this equation was Demyansk. Even though the German 16th Army managed to punch through a corridor to their encircled II Army Corps in March, 1942 it was highly insecure as a supply line and they had to continue with airlift for most supplies until the evacuation in February, 1943. In the process the Luftwaffe suffered steady losses in transports and gliders for nearly a full year.
It's funny because Brexiters have a meme ''so you're saying a country which won 2 world wars coudln't survive on its own'' while Bremainers have a meme ''so you're saying Britain could've won ww2 without the help of USA, USSR and at least 20 more countries''?
Congratulations, you win the award for most gratuitous, pointless and irrelevant shoehorning of Brexit into a totally unrelated yt comments section. Where else have you made gratuitous references to Brexit, in a film about Mongolian Yak farmers?
@@simonh6371 haha you're triggered because of truth
Haha, fair enough Lithuanian Warlord! :D
Brexit isn't about UK becoming North Korea and shutting its borders . it is about opening up to the world on our own terms without needing 27 other countries giving their consent. or rather one chancellor in Berlin ... i understand how Brexit is portrayed in msm across Europe and how misunderstood it is. a deliberate policy by msm
@@coling3957 Erm...no. The whole Basil Fawlty PoV reporting on Brexit is a strictly Anglo thing. The rest of Europe doesn't need WW2 to explain Brexit.
The German paratroopers also had problems at Narvik in Norway.
I do have to read about the German invasion of Norway.
I think Oslo, as a precursor to the Hague landings - the same idea, anyway.
Over 300 German planes shot down during the invasion of Holland? OUCH! That was impressive shooting.
Yes indeed.
Well Stefan don't forget the brave contribution of Rudy Burgwal and the rest of the 322 of the RAF in the Battle of Britain
This video isn't about the Battle of Britain itself, love to cover that in the future.
According to 322's wiki, the squadron was not formed until 1943. I don't think it is impossible that dutch pilots flew RAF planes during the battle of britain, but my gut feeling tells me there can't have been too many. I have to read that book by Bob van der Stok again, "Oorlogsvlieger van Oranje". He was one of only three people that escaped Stalag Luft III ( "The great escape") and in the book he describes how he participated in the air battle in the may days, how he escaped to England (I think the movie "Soldaat van Oranje" was based a lot on his accounts and those of Erik Hazelhoff Roelfsema), how he joined the RAF, was shot down, captured, put in a POW camp, escaped, got back to England again, rejoined the RAF and flew missions until the end of the war.
I have read a bit in "Valkenburg, mei 1940, de strijd om het vliegveld en het dorp" by D. Harff and P. Harff.
There was a Dutch soldier who used handgrenades.
Can you confirm this is true?
Could very well be true, since I've read accounts of Dutch soldiers using hand grenades. They were available. They could've been used on Valkenburg.
Disruption of the Supply Transport wing may not have been decisive in the Batle of Britain, but keep in mind that the Sixth Army would be starved into surrender at Stalingrad, because all those Ju 62 Transports were not there to deliver the supplies the Sixth Army needed to survive.
From what I believe - and I do have to further research this - is that supplying the immense 6th army via air was practically impossible to start with.
I almost fully agree however saying that it using paratroopers was a costly operation is a bit short through the corner. They did the same at fort Eben Emal and that was a very succesful and they took very few loses. Crete however was indeed the final straw.
You're right, E E was a success indeed.
The Dutch merchant navy leaving The Netherlands for the UK was a bigger contribution. Therefor the Germans also had a problem transporting the troops to the other side. The biggest mistake made was to let the British escape Dunkirk.
Maybe the Germans did want to go for air superiority over the UK because the saw what happened in The Netherlands if you do not have it.
And even if you loose 107 fighters - that means a lot of them which you could have used in the Battle of Brittain. It means the Germans would have started the Battle of Brittain with 2700 planes instead of 2600.
How minute these faces may seem I would say all of these little experiences the Germans had does influence the future attacks.
The germans never let the british escape of Dunkirk it was the french resistance in Boulogne,Lille and Dunkerke who did
I disagree so much! The Germans actually lost a lot more planes than the numbers mentioned in these video's and comments. Where is your research!? Also, the ships you mentioned could never ever have escaped to fight another day if the Dutch didn't fight back so effectively. Not just their navy, also the merchant fleet got away in big numbers. Also, Dutch troops under French command in Zeeland en Zeeuws vlaanderer put up a fight untill may 25, which slowed down the Germans too, helping the British to escape. All this helped immensely to frustrate the subsequent battle over Britain. It seems also, how many people do not understand anything about the essential strategic relevance and importance of a retreat. A serious ommision, a classic mistake, one even Hitler made, which actually cost him millions of troops, because he denied them to retreat, so they would end up defeated, killed or captured time and time again. Retreat is not cowardess, it is common sense to save troops to fight another day. It is proven to work.
@@Schepraam - then show us the right numbers I would say."your numbers are wrong - show me the evidence" is a weird approach. "Here are my numbers and the evidence/source to show you my numbers are correct" is something that is more appriciated.
@@stevenbos5206 It's not a match to me, but I suggest you check multiple sources. I did and came up with a more nuanced picture. For instance:
De Luftwaffe verloor in één dag 361 vliegtuigen.
www.luchtvaartnieuws.nl/nieuws/categorie/4/militair/luftwaffe-verloor-boven-nederland-361-vliegtuigen-in-acacn-dag
And also:
"The Luftwaffe lost about 525 airplanes during the campaign in Holland. Of those 525 about half could be recovered, repaired or used for reassembly of other damaged planes within six months after the Dutch capitulation."
www.waroverholland.nl/index.php?page=balance
Thanks for these insights.
Dear sir!
Would you kindly to make sometimes a video about Dutch revolution of 16th century and 80 years war, or videos of Dutch great companies (West and East companies)?
Thank you!
Right here my friend:
ruclips.net/video/whht14d5I1o/видео.html
And:
ruclips.net/video/sXvAb2Jj6Dc/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/xOF0-ZWWrc8/видео.html
Ah, thank you again!
@@ЕгорПещерский Lemme know your thoughts on these:)
It was the Royal Navy which was the barrier to stop the invasion of Britain. The RAF prevented German air superiority, every plane the Germans lost prior didn't help their effort naturally. The 2nd world war was an oil war the reason it turned at Stalingrad case blue and El Alamein. The Germans after these 2 battles lost their opportunity to fuel their armed for offensive operations.
Thanks for sharing your insights.
Thanks for another informative video. As a WWII re-enactor I would like to know where I could get a Dutch uniform like the one you wear.
Thanks! And check out:
www.re-enactmentshop.com/webshop/world-war-ii-allies/dutch-army
Waar heb je die poster gekocht van de Duitse invasie plannen die achter je hangt?
Marktplaats! Is een oude schoolkaart.
This guy has an epic beard.
Thanks!
Look closely - his head is on upside down. 😏
@@Kevin-mx1vi hahaha underrated comment
A slightly distant blood relative of mine was a Polish fighter pilot in the Battle of Britain.
Thanks for sharing.
Leuke video! Goed gedaan.
Bedankt!
Thank you so much for your bright videos on the subject. The numbers of German warplanes shot down above the Netherlands were indeed rather high, circa 375 (330?), mainly Junker 52 transporters. However I never did see the numbers shot down by The Belgians or the French (And for the same reason Denmark and Norway) and therefor it is not easy to establish an opinion on the comparative role the Dutch airdefense played in the international theatre of May 1940. Can you provide these numbers? That would be very informative in my opinion.
Totaly unknown fact: according to one of the best french historian, Dominique Lormier, the french shot down 50% of the Luftwaffe over France(the RAF greatly helped too)
Thanks Nikitas for providing us with information. Sorry Brand, I still have to properly read up on the German invasion of both Belgium and France.
He Stefan, ga je ook video maken over Prinses Irene brigade? Bijv. Hoe ze had opgericht en hoe ze had gepresteerd tegen de Duitsers?
Ja wellicht in de toekomst!
The German paratroopers suffered so many losses in the Netherlands during may 1940, that they could only be deployed again 2 years later in Crete, After that were hardly used in their original role anymore, apart from some limited operations on the Eastern front. They were however still considered as elite troops, who for instance defended Monte Cassino.
Paratroopers from all nations are usually considered to be elite fighting forces because of the incredible and rigorous training they receive. However, at the same time, nobody really considers landing full sized division from the air anymore.
In his memoirs, American General Gavin, commander of the 82nd "All American" Airborne Division (people keep mixing them up with the 101st "Screaming Eagles" even during wartime because both were usually dropped next to each other or, as happened in Normandy, on top or all around each other in all the confusion and missed dropzones occurrances.
Anyway, Gavin wrote that in the weeks prior to "D-Day," both divisions were scheduled to do a few full scale training air drops but because of the high number of casualties, he put a stop to that because it began affecting the men's morale.
Remember how many planes were shot down during the first hour of the airdrop the night before D-Day? Also, the men that did survive the air drop and did not drown in the sea or inundated fields, were hopelessly spread out. They did achieve surprise and caused chaos in the German second line but on the day after the drop, all they did was trying to find their units and their objectives.
During World War 2, anti aircraft batteries were deadly but they were not all radar guided and they certainly did not have guided missiles. That is why nowadays, even though paratroopers are still being trained and deployed, they are never dropped over enemy territory in full sized divisions anymore.
Thank you both for your additional information. Actually there was a discussion whether the German paratroopers can be viewed as "elite forces".
@@HistoryHustle That's just the thing with elite forces. Without combat experience, such a unit is only 'elite' because of its training etc.
The SS units deployed in The Netherlands were green troops but later on in the war they got better.
The German paratroopers during the later years of the war were definitely combat veterans who did great work (for the Germans) at Monte Cassino and on the Eastern Front.
However at the time of the Battle of the Bulge, not much was left of them.
what a staggering loss of transport aircraft, I never knew! I'd love to see You and or/any military historian do a video on what was the mindset that built the paratrooper forces in all these countries since there was no WWI precedent for paratroopers. I just saw a video on the Japanese invasion of Indonesia and one of its elite paratroop units received 80% casualties in a mostly lopsided win! Likewise the annals of the paratroop forces as a whole in WW2 were pretty terrible. These were generally physically superior troops who required extra training and were often considered elite but time and time again it was proven how hard it was to concentrate troops in an airdrop and hold out with only light weaponry and minimal surface transport...
Thanks for your reply.
very interesting thanks
👍
Het idee dat NL een doorslaggevende rol gespeeld zou hebben en de uitkomst van de Battle of Britain zou hebben beinvloed lijkt mij niet waarschijnlijk, Zelfs aan het einde van de oorlog, tijdens het Ardennenoffensief wisten de Duitsers nog 2000 vliegtuigen in te zetten, en tegen die tijd hadden ze al flink op hun bek gekregen op beide fronten.
Keep up the good work, I like your channel.
Bedankt Tony!
I think the losses in fighters and bombers was still relevant in the Battle of Britain. Even if it only counted for a percentage of the total losses Germany suffered in 1940, that still makes a difference. Especially in the long term, as German production simply could not compete with the allies, and they experienced labour shortages whenever their campaigns dragged on too long.
Thanks for your insights.
I was waiting for a "L.A. Beast here," during the whole intro.
I see...
Hitler was very angry that so many elite troops were killed around The Hague. That was really for a reason. Germans were also short of planes during the invasion of the Soviet Union. So the long term effect was there for sure. Germany also did not have an unlimited number of airborne troops. You cannot immediately replace all those soldiers who died around The Hague. Requires years of training. In the end they ran out of those troops too. In my opinion, it also had an short term effect. Even if it is in the psychological field of not being invincible.
Thanks for sharing your insights on this topic 👍
Nice video BTW
Thanks!
So you are saying that despite losing half their Junkers 52 fleet in May, they were up and running again in sufficient numbers in August/September for Seelowe? Numbers and source please.
See description of the video.
As most Ju52 planes were not shot down but damaged on the ground, either when landing on unsuitable fields or from ground fire, the Germans could retrieve a fair number after the fighting stopped and repair them and cannibalise much of the remainder for parts.
Kan je ook een video maken over Westerbork. En auswitch. Of hoe je dat schijft
Auschwitz heb ik hier voor je:
ruclips.net/video/0wywi1--BfQ/видео.html
Westerbork ga ik in de toekomst nog eens heen.
A fact. Most Junkers-52 were shot down over the Netherlands including 1200-1600 Paratroopers , Dutch Air defence was already using Radar guided guns at the Time, the first Country with that Tech available and practically working. Because of the lack of amount of Junkers-52 still available (not to mention the paratroopers slaughtered in downed planes) the invasion of Britain was either cancelled or posponed. Over 200 Junkers-52's including crew were lost...
So in all the refinement of using paratroopers was destroyed during the 5 Days of invading the Netherlands...
Thanks for sharing your insights on this.
An amount of JU52 planes that were damaged in May" 40 were collected by the Germans and send to the Fokker aircraft factory in Amsterdam for repair. And returned to service later. They were not " all lost" !
That's likely.
A detail that’s relevant to the conclusion here is that many if not most of the 224 Ju-52 losses were planes that had landed but were unable to move again, and were hence destroyed on the ground by the defenders. (I suspect the photo at 3.42 is a plane from the second Valkenburg assault wave that diverted to land on the beach south of Katwijk, and got stuck in the sand there). So I imagine the conclusion taken at the time was that direct air landing of troops (ie as oppose to paratroopers) was too dangerous against anything more than nominal opposition.
Anything beyond that is conjecture, but in the hypothetical that the Netherlands HAD indeed collapsed in 24 hours as Hitler hoped, the Germans might well have been emboldened to go on very quickly to attempt similar air landing of troops in England. Which would very probably have ended badly for them, but just a chance given the element of luck in war that the UK might have folded too.
Thanks for the additional information.
The majority of losses were the Ju52s... transport aircraft as you say. If you add these losses to the transport planes destroyed in Crete and North Africa, the transport command of the Luftwaffe was effectively unfit for purpose when Operation Barbarossa was launched.
Russia had poor roads and the Germans had over 114 different types of trucks in their motor pool in 1940.!! A logistical and spare parts nightmare.
A different track gage, scorched earth and few railway lines added to their supply problems.
Transport aircraft became essential to supply their advance ,and the aircraft they needed to do this, no longer existed.
Logistics were never the strong suit of the German army, as was illustrated by their failure to supply even the most basic needs of the 6 th Army at Stalingrad.
Thanks for sharing your insights.
I respect the fact that the Germans lost many transportplanes. The wrecks of the JU-52's were scattered all over the three airfields around The Hague and in the surrounding fields. Many more were not damaged but could not take off from the lowlying, waterlogged pastures where they had made emercency landings. These planes had to be (partly) disassembled in place and were transported via roads to regular airfields where they would be made flyable again.
Maybe all these losses were replaced as early as september 1940. I don't know but I find it hard to believe that the Junkers factory was able to churn out or repair more than 100 planes per month in the summer of 1940.
What your video fails to mention is the loss in aircrew, paratroopers and trained airborne infantry. More than a thousand Germans who had participated in the landings were taken prisoner and ferried to the UK before the Dutch surrender. In their initial airboirne assault the German Luftwaffe used Flight-instructors to man the operational JU-52's. That signifies a lack of trained personnel to handle these large and complicated flying machines. If you combine the loss of the transports AND the fact that the German airborne-capabilty was seriously hurt by the events in the Netherlands, I can imagine the Germans not considering using paratroops during or just after the Dunkirk-evacuation. If however, they had maintained that capability(by not using the 7th Flieger-division and the 22nd Luftlande-division), they could have used these troops in a surprise attack on the British ports of debarcation in Kent. At that time the British cabinet was divided in it's will to keep on fighting. In real life Churchill prevaled and Britain fought on. If the fictional airborne attack would have taken place, I'm not so sure if the Brits would have fought on...
Thank you for your additional information and insights. Really interesting to read!
German Paratroopers landing in a Dover port, full of British soldiers, with no backup coming to help them, would have been a short lived adventure. The Eagle hasn't landed.....
@@ukqwerty999 A full unbloodied German Airborne division, landing at RAF Manston, being resupplied by another Airlanding division could have had considerable influence on the British will to fight. The British cabinet was dvided about the question to fight on or not. Read the book Five Days in May or go and see the movie Darkest Hour. Anthony Eden wanted to sue for peace. If Churchill had not rallied the pubic opinion against him WW2 would have take quite a different route.
@@zeredbaronn You could play the Whataboutery game for a thousand different scenarios. (What if the RAF just strafed all those paratroopers) It doesn't mean anything. Attacking the Russians was completely dumb, they always just throw millions of men into battle whatever the weapons available.
The Battle of Britain was technically an air battle. If operation Sea-lion had commence reduced numbers of transport aircraft would have had an influence. Even then any airborne troops could only have been a small percentage of troops required for an invasion. Given the weather in the North Sea and Chanel when autumn commences it would have been months before before an amphibious invasion could be launched, ie spring 1941. Operation Overlord in 1944 may have had to be cancelled if delayed past July.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this.
The Nazis abandoning paratroopers actions after Crete raises the question why the Allies did use this tactics towards the end of WW2.
They believed it could work...
Although it was mostly Ju-52 transport planes that were shot down, the small Dutch airforce certainly put up a decent fight. What's interesting is that their Fokker D.XXI fighters did VERY well in the hands of Finnish pilots fighting the Soviets and the type was responsible for many kills.
Thanks for sharing.
It was the anti aircraft guns (quite modern ones compared to the rest of the Dutch equipment) that destroyed most of the planes. The German invasion of Denmark and Norway revealed German airborne tactics (taking over airfields and landing further transports) and the Dutch deployed their AA accordingly with many of them stationed around the airfields near Den Haag.
Can't find any record of Dutch pilots serving with the RAF in the Battle of Britain. I know many served in the RAF in coastal command and seem to remember that some planes were flown to England and for a while formed a squadron.
The losses of the Kreigsmarine in Norway to Norwegian and British forces could well have been a factor in the cancellation of Sea Lion. They were very significant.
Interesting, thanks for the additional information.
There was a Dutch Coastal Command squadron flying Dorniers, from memory. The Dutch aircraft ceased operations due to the utter lack of spare parts - among other factors.
Nice video and I enjoy watching your channel. Here are my thoughts. It is rarely one factor that can be attributed to events that occur later. This is more so in war. Did the 107 downed combat planes contribute to the Battle of Britain? Every plane counted, though the effect would be minor. During the invasion of Norway, the Reich’s Navy incurred significant losses. Losses that could not afford for operation Sea Lion. These losses would put increased focus on the air invasion. In Norway, Holland and Belgium, their were uneven successes. I am sure the destroyed air transports and the efforts of the Dutch forces to engage the Fallschirmjäger contributed to Hitler’s decision not to invade Great Britain. So, while not making direct contributions to the Battle of Britain (and air Battle), the efforts did contribute to keeping Britain in the war and helping defeat the Nazis.
Thanks for watching and taking the time to write down your thoughts, very interesting to read.
On the 13th of May, obergefreiter Müller lost his sidearm in Amsterdam. It was stolen by the resistance. This way Müller couldnt defend himself in Stalingrad 42. So in a way the dutch resistance contributed to......😂😂😂
Really? And he didn't replace it after 13 May... ?
Nice video, and I support you’ re conclusion. I have a few remarks; 1. Another important reason that Seelowe was cancelled is that the Germans had not Enough landingcrafts, had no experience in landings on shores and were afraid of intervention of the large English Fleet. (Airsupperiority would have helped to minimalize this). 2. The Germans did perform a few airlandings later on in the war but on a small scale. The most succesfull was the landing of gliders on the Gran Sasso under command of Otto Skorzeny to free Mussolini. 3. It is indeed typical that the allies continued to use paratroopers on D-Day, operation Market Garden and the crossing of the Rhine. It is not clear to me if they learned the lessons of the German droppings. If you look at Market Garden, I would say “No”.
Thanks for watching and providing additional information.
Addidtion: a large scalecattack by the Germans with paratroopers was done at the Ilse of Crete. Also with heavy losses.
i enjoy your chanele very much and hekko from greensburg pa usa
Many thanks!!
In de Engelse versie van De Slag om de Residentie (The Battle for The Hague) van Brongers staat een voorwoord van een Britse militair historicus die jouw stelling dat de Duitse verliezen aan vliegtuigen en bemanning nadrukkelijk tegenspreekt en verklaart dat die wel degelijk van grote invloed zijn geweest op de Battle of Brittain. Ik heb die Engelse versie toevallig maar ik ga dat hier niet uitgebreid uittypen. De Luftwaffe werkte in mei 1940 op de top van haar mogelijkheden vanwege de inzet van alle piloten en bemanningen tegen Frankrijk, België en Britse aanwezigheid daar. Voor de Junkers moesten ze daarom terugvallen op de inzet van het overgrote deel van de Duitse vlieginstructeurs. Die werden voor het overgrote deel gedood of gevangen genomen zodat de Luftwaffe de hele oorlog last heeft gehad van de aanvulling van verliezen. Ook de Duitse Luftwaffebevelhebber Kesselring heeft na de oorlog in Nürnberg verklaard dat de Duitse verliezen van mei 1940 aan de mislukking van de Slag om Engeland.
Klopt, ik heb mijn video gebaseerd op een artikel dat beide visies (Brongers en Amersfoort) onder de loep neemt.
I would think the big affect would have been at the pilot training pipeline, where replacement pilots are being sent to transport units instead of going into reserve for fighter and bomber aircraft.
This would create serious disruption when they are not available or must be retrained for combat Arms aircraft. Additionally the effect on the Luftwaffe logistics line would have been significant as the transport are not available to deliver priority Luftwaffe equipment and parts to Fighter and Bomber aircraft as the Battle of Britain heats up. The loss of so many trained air crew would have been a real problem. Not to mention you will have to devote an entire line of the Junkers factory to replacing the lost transport aircraft. Even if the number 100 doesn’t sound like a lot, imagine a field with 100 large planes on it and all have three engines and three crew. Wow, replacing that is going to take some time, especially if you want them trained to pre-war levels.
Thanks for your additional insights.
Ik heb wel eens begrepen dat net voor de caputilatie van Nederland er nog een behoorlijk aantal gevangen Duitse paratroopers naar Engeland zijn afgevoerd. En dat dat een gevoelige knauw heeft gegeven aan de hoeveelheid paratroopers die toen beschikbaar waren voor de Duitsers.
Zo'n 1300 werden afgevoerd per schip vanuit IJmuiden naar Engeland, net voor de capitulatie.
Een groot aantal Duitsers werd vervolgens ook nog eens afgevoerd naar Canada.
Dat klopt. Ik durf niet te zeggen in hoeverre dit een knauw heeft gegeven.
Why didn't Montgomery heed the lessons from the Battle of the Hague (May 1940) when planning Operation Market Garden in 1944?
Good question, not sure on the answer. Have to read up on it. Anyone?
@@HistoryHustle Stefan could you perhaps do a video exploring what would have happened if Market Garden had in fact worked ? For all I know the reason why the risk was taken to execute the operation is that the reward would be that the British and Americans would get to Berlin before the Russians and end the war sooner. If you have the resources, it's always an option. A very costly and high risk option because there are so many factors beyond your control, but an option nonetheless.
The Brits certainly learned. They used more and larger gliders. They arrived with their own transport and antitank guns. The British and American paratroopers jumped fully armed. The British and American used parachutes were superior over the first German used parachutes. The troopers were less likely to suffer landing injuries. Fun fact. The German paratroopers and their equiptment transported to Britain gave the British a basis to start with their own paratroop equiptment. They actually copied the boots and jump uniform at first.
@@jimomaha7809 Yet they encountered the same problems as the German airborme troops around The Hague in 1940: They had to hold out against more heavily armed ground forces for too long... And relieve forces that tried to join up over land and arrived too late...
@@Franky46Boy Nearly every airborne operation means landing behind enemy lines. Surrounded by a (larger) enemy and waiting for friendly ground troops woth armour. Most ww2 airborne operations was about bridges. 1940 Germans = 2 airborne divisions and not even up to full strength. During battle several airlanding troop aircraft had to return. Market= 3 full airborne divisions. Allies used more aircraft /gliders to land troops. German airlanding operations failed in the sense they did not managed to capture the government. 1940 airborne was a sub operation to conquer The Netherlands. Market was a main operation to conquer bridges and a passage to Germany. 1940 By bombarding Rotterdam the battle was won. The Dutch wanted to prevent further damage. The allies had a different goal, and not the same options.
I think it's possible that more Dutch and Belgium soldiers where killed fighting for the Germans in the army and SS then were killed defending in 1940. Would be interested in the correct numbers.
That is sure something for a future video!
Certainly true for Danish soldiers... Almost twice as many died fighting for Nazis as against them.
@@andylanigan3752 history doesn't recall Denmark fighting much at.. More like a surrender after been asked a little loudly...
224! "Tante Ju" losses was at least a 3rd of their total transports, and @ Stalingrad, in '43, Von Paulus might have been able to hold-out another week or three, if the transports lost in Holland had been incrementally lost aiding resupply for a breakout/further resistance there. Manstein got within 40 miles of punching through the Russian encirclement of Stalingrad. Those transports might have allowed him to split the encircling Soviet forces, such that a half/third of the Stalingrad Axis might have broken-out, meaning 80-60 thousand to oppose the Russian "Bagration" a year & a half later, or if reinforcing Operation Zitadele, might have led to an earlier [summer'43]victory @ Kursk! Bagration's failure, [--if it had occured, it collapsed Army group cntr] might have maintained Army group center for a few more months, meaning Bradley, Patton & Montgomery might have attacked & Reduced Berlin, saving a lot of German women from being raped at the city's fall. I think one could say that the Dutch shoot-down of 224 Ju-52s could have prevented a German victory in the East, thereby also shortening the war by 3-6 months, plus saving the 8th Air force and the RAF bomber force, because in 3-6 months, the Heinkle He-162 "Volksjager" would've been operational, plus More 262s, the Bachem Natter 349 area-defense rocket,--possibly a handful of the Gotha Go 222s,--faster and as powerful as a 262[--invisible to allied radar!].--these would have swept the 8th air force from the skies, even if they "switched" to B-29s. Berlin probably would have been Nuked. So, yeah, the "Yer Not much, if yer NOT Dutch" Ju-52 massacre by the 1940 Dutch, made an Allied victory in Europe Probable, if not faintly possible. The Germans learned nothing about protecting their transports, as they got "beat-up" in Greece, months later. That's what I say, and I'm sticking to it. So sez Jek Silberstein.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
Did the Dutch contribute to the Battle of Britain? Not directly
320 Squadron and 321 Squadron. These units had been assigned to Coastal Command using Fokker T-VIIIW seaplanes and crewed by Dutch naval flying personnel. Dutch naval flying personnel in Britain only
flew under the British flag in an operational sense. In administrative terms, they were under
their own command and continued to wear their own navy uniforms.
As for german air combat losses in May 1940 the vast majority of JU-52s lost were not due to air to air combat or anti-aircraft fire.
Most were lost in the battles for The Hague airfields (Ypenburg, Valkenburg, and Ockenburg) paratroopers were dropped around these airfield and tasked with their capture which would allow the planes carrying the 22nd Air Landing Division (Wehrmacht) to land. The airfields at Ypenburg and Ockenburg, the paratroopers had not secured the field when the transports began landing. Valkenburg, which was not yet complete in May 1940 the unfinished surface of the airfield meant that many planes were wrecked and none could take off again from the swampy ground. With the runways of all 3 airfields blocked all remaining aircraft had to crash land in fields or land in any suitable area due to lack of fuel. Subsuquent Dutch counter attacks, bombing and shelling damaged or destroyed many of the aircraft that survived the intital landing intact. Damaged Ju52s were repaired at the Fokker factory at schiphol.
Due to losses suffered by the luftwaffe air transport arm in the netherlands plus losses sustained in France and belgium its is likely they the effects were felt for the duration of the war but unlikely to have had a significant effect on the outcome of the war.
While the military impact on the war effort by by Dutch and Dutch colonial forces were minor however the Dutch merchant fleet played an important role.
It also has to be noted and it is something commonly overlooked is the critical role that the Dutch Antilles and suriname played in winning the war, 80% of all the aviation fuel used by the allies was produced in refineries located in the dutch antilles and Aluminium from Suriname’s bauxite was used in the construction of around 60% of all allied planes.
Thanks for sharing your insights, Erwin.
Although we did not have much effect on the outcome of the battle of Britain, we did do a very good job with the limited resources we had. Our air force was small and did not have the modern planes that Germany had. Nevertheless we did bring a reasonable amount of planes down. The Germans could have had a better result in the battle of Britain if they would have kept their focus on attacking airfields instead of switching to bombing cities. The British maybe had enough planes, but did not have enough well trained pilots. This can be seen by the large amount of foreign pilots they accepted.
Weer een mooie video. Ga zo door. En ik ben nog steeds erg benieuwd naar waar je die jas vandaan hebt. Ik ben zelf op zoek naar een Nederlands uniform jasje, maar kan niets vinden. Je breekt je nek over Duits, maar wil graag net zo'n jasje als waar mijn opa in gelopen heeft gedurende de mobilisatie.
Dank voor je bericht. Voor een jasje, kijk hier (niet goedkoop, wel mooi!):
www.re-enactmentshop.com/webshop/world-war-ii-allies/dutch-army
@@HistoryHustle thanks! gek dat die niet in mijn searches naar boven is gekomen. Ik zie hem beter in jouw video dan op de foto van de site. haha. ziet er goed uit.
certainly losses incurred during the May-June Blitzkreig contributed .. but the Germans and the British equally lost hundreds of aircraft and experienced crews.... by the time Britain stood alone awaiting the German onslaught its home defence forces were in a perilous state. we still have the Royal Navy ofc and several hundred fighters and light bombers ready to resist. modern history though seems to credit the victory of the Battle of Britain to everyone and everything except the British .. the times we live in .
Thanks for your comment.
I love that uniform
Thanks. It's Dutch 1940.
@@HistoryHustle I know, I'm from the Netherlands
The battle is a perfect example of boasting moral.Like a German flyer ace said the battle fell a sleep
I see.
Interesting. Could you make a film about the psychological effect of RAF and US bomber aircraft flying out and back , being shot down and baling out over the occupied Netherlands. The brilliant 1970s TV series Secret Army tells the stories of the airmen going down the ' life line' , to get back to Britain via Iberia. Was it any different from Belgium, give the strength of fascist sympathisers in parts 9f the Netherlands and Flanders . I know that the stupid Netherlands section of the SOE in Baker Street, sent scores of agents into the Netherlands to be roundrd up by the Germans through the Englandspiel infaltraton by the Abwher and Gestapo. Were airmen sheltered by the Netherlands populations ,iike many in Brussels and Wallonia , or were many betrayed to the occupiers, as they had few ways of getting them out. RAF bomber command lost 55,000 men , including sirmen from all around the globe , including the Netherlands and Friesland. Please no more wining about Dresden, the tragedy of 25,000 people dying , equating to a couple of weeks work in the Nazi death and concentration camps and death marches.
Dutch be flexing
Sure!
Whether or not the Dutch contributed to the Battle of Britian? is irrelevant. As a Brit, if the Dutch managed to shoot down one fighter or one bomber, that was one less that we had to deal with and for that, they should be thanked.
I understand. Thanks for your reply.
My Grandpa shot aircraft out of the air
Interesting, how did he reflect on his services in May 1940?
Before you enter battle, you probably have an an acceptable losses number for men and machines. The Germans suffered more loses in Poland than I had always imagined. No doubt the loses were so significant on the German side that instead of a westward attack in April, they waited a month and attacked in May. They needed that month to replenish men and machines. They were expecting large losses. The Poles had a large army, but it was hardly modern. They knew the West had a large armed forces, but also knew it was more modern than Poland. Their expectations of loss probably increased the winter of 1939-40. While Dutch and other forces inflicted a lot of casualties, I think they were fine with that. The Germans underestimated, but luck chased the BEF to Dunkirk faster than expected. No doubt a lot was left behind, but they failed to destroy the BEF. Unsure how much equipment was still in Britain and taking more than expected themselves, Germany was in no shape to take on Britain. They settled and prepared for Hitler's personal agenda in the USSR. Personally I would have continued the air war, kept replenishing and hit Britain before Pearl Harbor. By then the USSR would have been in conflict with Japan. Let USSR fight two fronts makes a lot more sense than Germany fighting on two fronts. Hitler was stupid and had too much personally against his enemies. Don't take things personally and do stupid things in a hurry. That was Hitler's biggest flaw.
Thanks for sharing your insights.
I think you need to look futher than the Battle of Britain.
As mentioned below somewhere; its very doubtfull if there were serious plans top conquer Britain at all, the Battle of Britain in my view is to be seen as an effort to demolish the RAF and this only for the reason to get a peace treaty and therefore get Britain out of the war.
The losses to the JU-52 transport planes did have an effect in the Russian campaign:
In several cases the German Airforce were needed to supply cut of troops, most famous is the Battle of Stalingrad.
One of the main problems in supplying those troops were the lack of transport planes (JU-52) with sufficient supplies.
For the encircled 6th Army there was a relief plan which also needed a break out attempt of that 6th Army but they needed to be resupplied with enough amo and fuel to do so.
The amount needed to keep the 6th Army fighting (for active fighting you need a lot more than for defensive actions) was never met.
When the Germans would have enough JU-52 planes they could have get more supplies in (surely in combination with the losses to JU-52 planes suffered at Crete).
I will not say that if the Germans had way more JU-52 planes available the 6th Army could have been saved but its a fact that needed resupply did never happen even at minimal quantities.
Even if you do not look at Stalingrad; during the war in Russia logistics was allways the main issue for the Germans, then it did surely help that the Germans lost many hundreds of transport planes.
The invasion of the Soviet Union is sure something I'm gonna dive into in the future. Actually there were very serious plans to invade England. I do believe that on the historical research I've studied.
Germany produced more than 4.500 Ju-52s for the Luftwaffe and of course also other transport airplanes, thus the loss of the roughly 224 Ju-52s in the Netherlands was probably not that important later in the war when the production was significantly higher than previously to the war.
@@HingerlAlois Thats not quite correct, at the outbreak of WW2 there were about 550 JU-52 available and production numbers were between 1939 and 1944, 2,804 Ju 52s (1939: 145; 1940: 388; 1941: 502; 1942: 503; 1943: 887; and 1944: 379), the number you are refering to are total build including post war and pre war in use as commercial planes.
Also take in account Crete as a major loss for those planes.
To end: there are reports stating that the losses in the invasion of the netherlands were 295 JU 52 planes, but maybe the number mentioned in the video are corrected by later repaired ones, nevertheless: almost a year worth of production lost will have hurt.
@@HistoryHustle I dont want to start a game of yes the would or no the could not but i think youre wrong on the subject of Sealion.
The Germans had nothing to invade with (no landing ships, a very small navy compared with the Royal Navy (totally intact at that time) and even more: Sealion could not take place as the Germans were planning to invade Russia, a 2 front fight in that scale was not an option for the Germans.
There was no actual plan to invade, Halder (chief of staf German high command) had to made up a plan when to the Germans own surprise France was beaten very fast and that plan was no way a serious plan which actually could ever been carry out.
Hitler also stated in a meeting in 1940 (after the fall of France) that the political bluff of invading England was important and therefore to keep it believable the preparations were to continue but resources and troops were ment for the invasion of Russia.
But as said, not intended for a who is right discussion: keep up the video's, I enjoy them.
Thanks for the reply. Perhaps somewhere in the future to dive further in this.
Hello History Hustle,
leuke video's maak je. Toch moet ik hier wel wat over zeggen. Dat jij van Amersfoort hierin volgt dat de duitse vliegtuigen die neergeschoten zijn boven Nederland geen impact hadden op de slag om Engeland vind ik erg jammer. Ook niet erg terecht. Ten eerste staat van Amersfoort bekend als een enorm criticaster als het gaat om mei 1940. Nogal boude uitspraken doet hij in zijn boeken, als je weet dat die man ergens in de jaren 50 geboren is en de oorlog niet zelf heeft meegemaakt. "de beste stuurlui staan aan wal".. Dat de vliegtuigen die boven Nederland neergeschoten zijn enkel transportvliegtuigen waren en geen vechtvliegtuigen is waar. Maar de Duitsers wilden ook met luchtlandingen komen nadat men de slag boven Engeland gewonnen had.
Tevens waren veel bemanningen die boven Nederland neergeschoten waren en dood of POW de enige die leraren waren van andere piloten. Dus zou je kunnen stellen dat het materialistisch gezien geen invloed had maar menselijk wel.
Voor de rest heb ik Brongers zijn boeken gelezen en hij is veel genuanceerder dan wat jij stelt in dit filmpje.
Maar voor de rest, een goede video!
Dank voor je bericht. Waar Van Amersfoort bekend staat als criticaster, staat Brongers bekend als iemand die iedere Nederlandse soldaat een heldenstatus toedicht. Ik beschouw mijn bron, die ook andere bronnen aanhaalt als betrouwbaar. Je kunt deze ook online bekijken dus voel je vrij het artikel te lezen.
@@HistoryHustle Dat klopt ja. Brongers overdrijft soms. Maar liever iemand die zo in het leven staat dan iemand die niks heeft meegemaakt en dan vuil uithaalt naar anderen. Toen hij amper droog achter de oren was was hij al zo kritisch op het Nederlandse leger. Terwijl (volgens Brongers) de buitenlandse kenners van WOII veel positiever zijn. Vooral over de slag om den Haag en hoeveel vliegtuigen men naar beneden heeft geschoten (of beneden aangekomen kapot schoten).
Kwestie van welke historische visie je hebt. Denk niet dat Amersfoort iets persoonlijk tegen de soldaten heeft. Hij maakte wel een uitglijder waarover toen nog een zaak is geweest. Ben de naam van die veteraan vergeten. Hij heeft er nog een boek over geschreven...Had je deze al gezien? Denk dat je die wel waardeert:
ruclips.net/video/lGLmxN8hx7o/видео.html
That is a lot of planes lost 😮
Yes.
Als je in mei 2020 naar Ypenburg komt, dan zou ik je willen ontvangen, ik woon in de buurt!
Mijn vriendin woont daar op de oude landingsbaan. Zowat niemand daar weet wat er op die grond zich heeft afgespeeld
Zeker van plan in de toekomst. Weet niet of ik het red in mei.
Als je ziet dat de Duitsers zelfs een paar italianen hebben laten komen om te helpen bij de battle of Britain..dan denk ik dat ze elke piloot/vliegtuig nodig hadden facebook.com/worldwarincolor/photos/a.393169424146189/2604544819675294/?type=3&theater
Interessant, dank voor het delen.
@@HistoryHustle Jij ook bedankt voor alles!
Ten eerste; erg gave filmpjes, zat ik op te wachten.
Ik heb een aantal jaren terug een vierdelige serie gezien over de luchtmacht in de meidagen. Over vliegvelden die niet ontdekt werden door de Duitsers vanwaar wij opstegen om een hit and run te doen over de duitse luchtlandingsplaatsen. Daar zijn erg veel duitse transportvliegtuigen vernietigd.
Ik kom alleen niet meer op de titel van die serie. Op history toen dat nog goed was
Dank voor je bericht Laurens. Mocht je de serie nog herinneren, laat het ons weten.
@@HistoryHustle Gevonden!!
Vaak zonder resultaat naar gezocht, maar nu heb ik hem! Dit zou hem moeten zijn:
De Mei-vliegers van Hans Vos. Zijn twee delen blijkt nu, en was in 2009 op National Geographic.
Is te koop als 2e hands als boek met dvd.
Is echt een aanrader!!
Only the losses of transport planes is mentioned(Ju 52's)...
but the paratroopers where in that planes...if these very slow planes should endure an atack by a Spitfire or Hurricane wich were both armed with 8 machine guns, almost no paratroopers should have survived such an attack...the metal skin of airplanes don't give any protection against bullets!
I think the Germans did consider that to be the biggest risk to carry out a airborne assault.
The five days of blockage helped many other allies to brace themselves. They must be thankful to the Dutch people.
Sorry to burst you bubble but the attack on the Netherands was but a small part of the attack. Most went through Belgium and the Ardennen. We did not hinder those armies in the slightest I fear. Sure we kept a part of the German army occupied for 5 days. But the German Blitzkrieg proved unstoppable and we ended up with Engand fleeing at Dunkirque andf Belgium and France being occupied.
@@gerlofwoudstra8341
Yes, but no. The terrorbombing of Rotterdam was ordered because stiff Dutch resistance, far more than planned originally, had put the northern thrust of the Germans in danger of being overrun by the French field army and the BEF. This would've meant a scenario where Germany had no troops between the allies and the Ruhr area, while that would've been within 1-2 weeks of marching. They would've needed to stop the entire invasion of France and Belgium by being outflanked that bad.
While in itself minor, the strategic implications were much bigger in the 'almost didn't lose' of 1940.
Remember that even most German generals were surprised at winning like they did. They had expected the war in France would've lasted months and months, with hordes of British pouring in WW1 style as well. Losing was also on the table at the time.
Fair enough
Blah b There was no danger of the Germans being 'overrun by the French field army and the BEF'. Their plan was to sit behind their defences and showed very little aggressive action thanks to their leadership. The time to attack the Germans was when they were still in Poland which the French successfully did but were recalled by their leadership.
If any country can lay claim to effecting the outcome of the Battle of Britain, it's the Poles who not only inflicted heavy losses on the Germans but those who then served in the RAF, had an big impact.
@@frankanderson5012
Yeah, thanks for your attempt with your 30-secs-on-wikipedia knowledge, but unfortunately the French had crossed the Dutch border, causing a panic which lead to the terrorbombing of Rotterdam.
At 10 may in the evening the Groupe Lestoquoi contact with colonel Schmidt who was in charge of Dutch-French liasons and the regional commander of Brabant.
Which looked like so on the map:
www.zuidfront-holland1940.nl/index.php?page=photo&pid=4749
As for the rest, what complete and utter nonsense. You're a Polish law&justice supporter aren't you?
German manpower in Poland 2 million
Losses 59K
That's 2,95% losses.
German manpower in the Netherlands 280.000
Losses 9032
That's 3,2% losses
The Dutch army inflicted heavier losses on the Germands than the Polish army did.
We also didn't provide them with a great casus belli through brutal ethnic against ethnic Germans, effected by a savage fascist regime which ruled Poland at the time.
Can you imagine Hitler getting a war by saying "But those Dutch make cheese the wrong way!!!"?
No, me neither. Such a thing requires saying things like "Thousands of our people were treated savagely by these horrible racist Polish dictators after 1918 and they stole our land. We Germans must have justice"
The Germans should have told you all that they were simply bringing in bicycles!
Lol.
The German got pilot training, practice, the quality of fighters and fighting formations correct and got so many things wrong. Of course it helped that the Dutch shot down these aircraft
Please watch the video.
I disagree, a lot. Even while you can debate if it had a decisive influence, it most certainly has had a significant influence. Also the Dutch navy and merchant ships that escaped helped evacuate the British troops at Dunkirke. The main point of ciritcism I have is that you too easily dismiss the Dutch efforts and their effectiveness; I think this biass comes from taking the outcome of 'militairy defeat' first, and selecting the events to go with this narrative. This is not scientificly sound. The Dutch were not defeated in military battle. If you would change the format by just taking a complete sequence of the events and give them more in detail, and another story emerges. The Germans had to divert tank troops meant for Belgium operations to the Netherlands. They lost thousands of elite paratroops on a failed mission to capture the Dutch government, designed and supervised by Hitler himself. I also miss the destruction of armoured trains. The Dutch defense was effectively bringing the German offensive to a grinding halt, even if they broke through the first and secondary defenses, the Vesting Holland was not taken yet. The Germans were slowed down, stalled even to the point where Hitler and Goering got immensely frustrated and resorted to firebomb the inner cities civil populations. This lead directly to militairy capitulation, which makes sense because what use is a defense force if the people are sacrificed for it? The German reputation for cilivian slaughter had long been set with Warsaw, etc.. So the Dutch knew very well it was no hollow threat form the Germans to bomb Utrecht too. Fighting such a lawless and evil force is militairly impossible without an airforce and airdefense of cities. So, even while militarily the Dutch army could never have won the battle in 1940, they did have a pretty solid defense and even defensive improvisation skills. Eventually the German tankforce would have also broke through, but they might have even been slowed down some more and would have suffered big losses. We will never know, will we? But this is the problem, war is not a fair game where everyone follows the rules. Also, even if there was military surrender, under French and Belgian command, resistance by Dutch troops in the province Zeeland and Zeeuws-vlaanderen went on until may 25.
The argument that was made for the Dutch influencing the outcome of the Battle of Britain was exclusively based on the number of aircraft shot down during the defense of the Netherlands.
THAT argument is invalid, for the reasons Stefan mentions (though the losses in transport aircraft could have had an effect on the postponement of the invasion plans, which eventually led to their cancellation, but I don't think the invasion would have happened anyway as the required air superiority over the south of England was never achieved by the Germans).
CaptainDuckman these are really theoretics based on limited set of facts, assumptions and deliberatly low interpretations of the numbers to support some preferred outcome, you just can adjust the facts or the hypothesis after the results let you down, that is really sloppy science. For the sake of argument I could entertain you with more detail but I suggest you do your own research. It is not a game and I don’t enjoy a lengthy discussion.
Hello Henk, thank you for your exentensive comment. I see we agree on a lot of things.
As for the armoured train. These weren't in need for the Battle of Britain. This video focuses on planes.
By the way, have you seen my video about when the Dutch were successful during May 1940: ruclips.net/video/lGLmxN8hx7o/видео.html
It is my understanding that Germany committed too many pilot-instructors to take part in the invasion of the Netherlands and this is where the luftwaffe was hampered. Not their ability to replace the planes but their ability to train enough new pilots to make use of those planes. In other words, the Dutch shot an unexpected high number of flying-experience out of the air and this was not so easily replaced.
First of I hate how you pronouce the Dutch :-) I think like in the battle of Britain one should not look at the numbers of planes lost, but the number of crews lost. Germany was in War Production mode and had no shortages at that time, Any losses in material could be easily replaced. I never considered the effect on the Batlle of Britain, and you are probably right in your conclusion. however did the losses and the extra time needed to subdue the Netherlands have an effect on the battle in France? Ps still proud of our pilots however you look at it they did more damage then could have been expected of them
Thanks for the additional information. How should I pronounce the Dutch differently? :)
@@HistoryHustle niet alsof je moet overgeven man :-)
Sorry used the term airlanding.Isn't it air assault troops.Or airbornDefinitly not airlanding.
Perhaps that would have been better. I translated it literaly from 'luchtlandingstroepen' to avoid confusion with the paratroopers.
The Dutch and Germans where fighting England in South Africa and lost their colonies so why would the Dutch help England? Doesn’t make sense.
Politics change.
Come on.The Fokker with twin engine was a outstanding fighter.But determine the outcome of Seelöwe,no.
Fair point.
What? No Soldaat Van Oranje??
lol