The Greek mathematician Eratosthenes determined the earth circumference to within 3% of the actual value, when he lived in Alexandria. He based his is based on measurements of a shadow in 2 wells (one in Alexandria and one in another town almost due South of this ) at noon. The errors in his calculations is almost certainly down to not having an exact distance between the wells.
Yep, I was going to add this! It looks like Columbus' misconception was mainly based on incorrectly converting units of measurement--the eternal bane of our collective existence.
To add, a ton of people got close to the measurement of the earth circumference but around medieval times they realised due to technical limitations the best accuracy could not be more than 5% off the actual value which is pretty neato.
the only way i could accept that as your answer is because you say water distributes equally along, making a flat surface, not mountains, hills ect. .... my counter argument in that case would be: waves
About the false historical fact regarding US winning WWII I’m reminded of something my French tour guide at Normandy told said as he reflected on the genius of the Mulberry Harbor: “the war was won with British brains, American steel, and Russian blood”.
@@grumblesa10 Japan was a much weaker foe that was a threat because the European powers couldn't put their full power at them due to the axis. Also China was a big contributor.
@@Linesweeper I grant China was a contributor, but the US were flying supplies to them which they credit as assisting, as well as supplying combat troops and advisors (yeah Stilwell, but an advisor). British, French, Dutch naval power was DESTROYED, no other way to put it by Japanese surface, subsurface and air power. There is frankly zero comparison between the level of effort of the US forces and European in any sub-theater of the Pacific...
@@grumblesa10 British and French naval strength was never truly put against Japan, as they weren't seen as the real threat. Britain didn't just lose more ships to the Germans than the Japanese, they also lost more ships to the Italians. The European allies sunk more of their own ships than the Japanese did. Japan is heavily overstated as a great power. (Also Japan suffered many of their worst losses to British colonial troops. The resupplying via the Burma road is also a major factor in the war in China)
Amelia Earhart had a navigator with her on her pacific flight. She was the first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic in 1932 and had been the first woman to cross it as part of a 3 person crew in 1928.
and if you belive Star trek was kidnapped by aliens and taken to the delta quarent where one day the USS Voyager would find her and her navigator Fred Noonan and others from the 30s earth
I'm a historian myself and I would confidently claim to know a lot about modern Korean /Japanese / Chinese history. I had never considered the DUtch East Indies argument. Really made me think ... Kudos to the original video and to you for examining it.
I'm a rank amateur and I have wondered ('considered' is way too strong of a word,) "take Dutch East Indies, yet ignore The Philippines? Probably not? Probably can't?" End of wondering.
@@DanBorensthey did. The IJN General Staff considered bypassing the Philippines and taking Indonesia only. The Combined Fleet wanted to take the Philippines, as they felt the U.S. wouldn’t sit out a pacific war. Yamamoto, Admiral of the Combined Fleet, threatened to resign if Philippines/Pearl Harbor didn’t happen. The rest is history
Two quick clarifications: 1) Yes, the circumference of the earth was known to a fairly accurate degree, but Columbus miscalculated. He thought Asia was bigger than it was and the ocean smaller. He thought it was only 2700 miles from the Canary Islands to Japan. 2) I should have been more clear - it is true that the Emancipation Proclamation technically didn't apply to areas under Union control like New Orleans, however it still effectively ended slavery in those places as slaves ran to Union lines and simply lied about where they'd come from. Union commanders often didn't bother verifying it. Update: Since I'm also getting a lot of comments about this one, here's a study that was done a few years ago about the idea of who won WW2. The bottom line? EVERY country overestimates their contribution to WW2. The country MOST likely to believe it was chiefly responsible for winning the war, by a wide margin, is not the US but Russia. www.psypost.org/2019/10/study-finds-people-overestimate-their-own-countrys-contribution-to-world-war-ii-54568 Here's another one. Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden and Finland all attribute the victory to the US more than any other Allied nation. Only the Brits and Norwegians in this study said Britain. yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/05/01/Britain-America-disagree-who-did-more-beat-nazis (BTW I don't agree, just pointing out that it isn't just Americans who feel this way) 3) And yes I definitely misspoke when I said Amelia Earhart was flying solo...I intended to mean that she was the only one doing the flying but yes she had a navigator Fred Noonan with her, so she wasn't solo.
Also, the 13th amendment only made most aspects of slavery illegal. You could still enslave someone as punishment for a crime, which many states, cities, counties, and districts in the south actively did to blacks for the next 80 years.
@@agentspaniel4428 Yes, the killing of Franz Ferdinand and Sophie may have been the cause of the war but there were so many chances to stop it that weren't taken the only conclusion is some wanted the war, an example of this are the demands by Austria Hungary that could never be accepted by Serbia and the Kaiser needed to say that and persuade Austria Hungary to modify them rather than offering unconditional support to them.
Japan's options were pretty hobbled on the negotiating table by its own governmental structure at the time. The rest of the world didn't know this, but the military was practically operating independently of the civilian government by that point, and any civil official who tried to stop that found themselves not just removed from power, but straight-up assassinated by a mid-ranking Army official who'd get pardoned on the grounds of "excess of patriotism." Any time the civilian government would make a promise to stop attacking X or Y, the military would simply blow past that line in the sand, either via a false flag attack pretext or just ignoring it. Of course, nobody in the West was privy to this (because you absolutely do not tell a foreign power that you're not in charge anymore) and the Japanese government as a whole was pretty much opaque to the outside observer, so for a while there the Americans just thought they were dealing with an absolute dictator who was also lying through his teeth every time he sat down to negotiate.
@@spjr99 The Extra History series on Japanese militarism is a great start ( ruclips.net/video/JEG09-Aynco/видео.html ) along with Dan Carlin's Hardcore History, specifically his Supernova in the East series. To clarify a little more on the simplification I made about "civilian government" vs. "military," it was a little more complicated at the time, especially due to factions duking in out in the legislature.
Also one thing that I see that both of the videos ignores...is the fact that what caused the embargo in the first place and completely destroyed the relations with the US was the occupation of French Indochina by Japan (obviously this move was made by the military, which completely ignored any diplomacy). Sure the US also demanded that Japan stops all its aggressions in Asia (I'm pretty sure it demanded it pull out of its conquests as well, but whatever). If the US got hissy over a fairly minor colony of Indochina, it sure as hell would never let Japan just take the Dutch East Indies.
Oh man you've unlocked a gold mine of content with Simons stuff...its good, just not very deep, it's basically Wikipedia level descriptions, but Simon is a good presenter and they're good entry level videos for people. And if you do anymore of his videos, just remember that Simon isn't an expert on the topics he talks about, he's a presenter paid by people to read scripts on screen written by others, it's a whole operation of channels and I'm surprised you've only just found it all haha.
Very true. I would never hate on Simon for being incorrect about something. I'm not sure what behind the scenes contributes he makes to videos he's in, but he definitely isn't the sole researcher. It's not a one man show.
It's Wikipedia-level because it is Wikipedia. Pull-up one of the articles sometime then read along with Simon. His writing team flat-out rips the Wiki entries word-for-word at times.
Simon produces his videos to make money, not to educate people, thus they are pretty lackluster and soulless most of the time. He has tons of channels all of the same formula. Don't get me wrong, this is a legit way to produce videos, but i don't enjoy any videos from him and avoid his content and spent my 0,5 cents from ad revenue preferably to another youtuber.
As a European,you often get Americans saying, if it weren't for us you would be speaking German. While is obvious, that US support was an integral part, especially US industrial might. As far as fighting in Western Europe in WW2, you can't overlook the absolute bravery of the various resistance movements in the Occupied countries. You are very correct to point out the likes of the Italians in WW1. That front was savage, and very overlooked in folk history of the period. Very impressed by your detailed and well rounded knowledge. You have yourself a new subscribed. Thanks for your well thought out analysis of these events, and you have yourself a new subscriber.
The only Americans who say that are those who don't study history or global geopolitics or anything and are also overly patriotic to the point they believe the United States is far and away the greatest country on Earth. It's a bunch of untraveled and uncultured fools to put it bluntly. Every country has those people, but our large population and large size causing international travel to be more expensive means we have a lot of those people. It's best not to argue with them because they won't listen to reason. Most Americans do not believe and say such things, though.
Literally every single person in Europe would be rather speaking German and live like Germany, than speaking russia, which was forced on us by russian invaders. Ukrainians won World War 2 in Europe when First Ukrainian Front army took Berlin and defeated Nazi Germany, and West betrayed us by shaking hands with Stalin in temporary occupied Yalta, Crimea, Ukraine. American lend-lease helped, but the end result was us being enslaved by the russians. As was half of Europe. Allies didn't win WW2 as it started over defending Poland from German and russian joint invasion of 1939, and ended up giving entire Poland and more to moscow's reign of terror.
Minor correction: You said Amelia Earhart was attempting to fly around the world solo. She wasn't making that flight solo. She had a navigator, Fred Noonan, who also likely died wherever it was that they crashed.
Wow, talk about "misinformation ". If he was along as navigator (or in any capacity), how can this be designated a 'Solo' flight? I can see why rally car drivers get so much credit, but don't think it would be logical to say they were driving Solo. Does not compute.
True. additionally it was supposed to be a three person flight. The third being a radio operator. Earhart almost had a crash on takeoff before starting the Pacific leg of the journey and the Radio man quit. Earhart tried to operate the radio herself, and issues with the radio were a major factor in her crash. She was supposed to hone in on a US navy ship via radio so she could find a small island on the Pacific crossing for refueling. But while she could send out messages, she was tuned to the wrong frequency to receive returns from the ship and became lost.
I always liked the quote, "World War 2 was won with American steel, British intelligence, and Soviet blood." The Allied victory was a group effort; even small nations gave it their all.
Thats a very good point. Australia for example ended up being the worlds biggest forward supply base for the US efforts in the Pacific. New Zealand became the flying school for the Empire in the first half of the war.
@@chasespeer251 why would you say that the french resistance Was Not signicant? Of course, there were a lot of Problems, first and foremost that the resistance was not at all a unified force. Yet under British Management, the resistance archieved important things. Mainly on and around D day, the infrastructure destroyed by the resistance was crucial in preventing the Axis to quickly counterattack the Allied beachheads.
@@chasespeer251 tbh I'd say soviets did about 90% of the effort of actually turning the tide of war against Germany. Everyone else contributed a lot in the counter-offensive, but the war was won in 1943, at that point it was just a question of when will Germany surrender, not if.
@@kolosmenus in 1943 the Allies destroyed the African front, invaded Italy, bombed Germany heavily and started to prepare plans for DDAY just in case. The US also produced over 100,000 vehicles and Over 100 million rounds of ammunition and gave these things produced to the UK, French and Soviets as well as our own troops.
In defense of Brüning: He really did not have much choice but to rule without the parliament. A key issue of the Weimar republic was that democrats (meaning people who support democracy) had no secure majority. The so called Weimar coalition of social democrats, liberals and Brünings catholic center party were the only ones committed to it, most of the time the national liberals had to be included to keep the government able to function. The national liberals were monarchists but they feared that the communists would take over if the republic became to weak, so they supported it for the time being. But coalitions were always fragile and snap elections were the norm. In the face of economic crisis the rifts between the democratic parties became even more visible and at the same time communists and national socialists got ever more votes, they battled each other in the streets but regularly voted together in parliament as a destructive majority, a bunch of small special interest parties with a handful of seats did not help either. Brünings bypassing of the dysfunctional parliament was therefore generally supported by many democratic forces but it could not continue forever. The plan of the faction around Papen, which was very influential with president Hindenburg, was to make Hitler chancellor, to get the support of the biggest voting block, while secretly control this political greenhorn and calling the shots themselves. We all know how that worked out
The funny thing about Papen’s plan is that’s exactly why the guy before him suggested Papen become Chancellor. He was using a scheme that was used against him. The difference was, Papen was easy to manipulate, Hitler wasn’t.
Two thoughts on this. First, the big problem with Bruning was his economic policies to intentionally bankrupt Germany to get the Allies to drop the Versailles reparations payments, to rob the NSDAP and DNVP of their biggest gripe. It stopped the payments as planned, but by causing an unemployment crisis and banking collapse it ended up totally backfiring and growing the Nazi vote. Secondly people often overlook the key element of Von Papen's plan to control Hitler. Cabinet operates on collective responsibility, meaning votes are binding on all members. White Hitler was made Chancellor he was only given 3 of 11 Cabinet posts, meaning the Nazis could always be outvoted by Papen's Zentrum Party and the DNVP. That would finally be a way to silence Hitler and control him. He would be Chancellor, but have no real power. Unfortunately for Papen what he didn't plan on was Hitler immediately using his power as Chancellor to call a new election and using his new control of the police to rig that election.
Simon has gotten so much better as time has gone on. He can be really funny with his out-of-context quotes to start Business(Brain) Blaze videos, or super-serious on Biographics about despots, dictators or other dark topics. He’s a great presenter, but here, he was very young in his online career, as well as his voice wasn’t fully where it is today.
Simon did get a lot better at this stuff, but has recently been making some lazy videos where he tries to rely too much on his personality in place of research. It doesn't work.
As an Australian I'll always be eternally grateful for what the US did in the Pacific. Without the US island hopping campaign it's unlikely Australia could've held off Japan. We certainly didn't have the naval power and had a significantly smaller fighting force
Japan actually had no intention on going any further the Papua new Guinea. They had considered it but dismissed it as to hard due to supply, distance and the size of the country. Australia was actually militarily quite powerful by the end of the war and at one point had something like the 2nd largest military spending for a brief time. The biggest issue Australia faced immediately was the bulk of our army and airforce was in Africa so we had to send reserves to png to hold them back while we ordered our men back from Africa but the bulk of the airforce stayed. India actually had the biggest military presence in Asia fighting in China and the like.
I gotta say, I was kinda expecting him to bring up the Napoleon not being short one. That is far more of a historical misconception that far more people hold than like half of these.
I had an argument with my mom and aunt about this a while back. I was shocked that they still hadn’t found out it was a myth. They were eerily defensive about it before I forced them to do a quick Google search. Next thing you know they were perfectly calm and wanted nothing to do with the conversation, despite practically yelling at me mere moments prior. Why are adults so defensive about outdated information?
12:53 option 1 was never going to happen. Japan leaving China was a condition for Japan coming to the table to end the embargo, all of it, including Manchuria. As for 2. Japan (in my view rightly) assumed the us wouldn't let them attack a ton of territory right next to us territories and protectorates without further action. Regardless these are technically "other options* so the point is technically correct but they aren't options I would take if I ruled Japan at the time, it's a pure hindsight option.
Right. And the thing this guy is completely ignoring here in the video is that the US did involve itself in the European war on the side of the British. Not officially, but we did effectively give them a bunch of money, supplies, equipment, and even volunteers in exchange of some military bases in the West Indies and Newfoundland. I would have absolutely no doubt that if Japan invaded the Dutch East Indies and British East Asia, the US would involve itself there too, especially considering the US actively said it would defend European Southeast Asian colonies from Japanese aggresion. Whether directly or not, I don't know, but to say FDR couldn't push through sending men, money, and materiale to help the British and Dutch in the Pacific is ignorant at best, and purposely disingenous at worst.
@@sourlemon1002, yeah, but the guy in the video talks about the US not willing to enter the European war in support of the British in a way that implies the US wasn't helping the British at all. Which is absolutely untrue. And then he uses that to justify saying how the US wouldn't have involved themselves in a Pacific war where they themselves aren't attacked, which again, it total bullshit.
Agreed. Weren't there whole air squadrons like the all African American one "flying tigers" I think that were fighting the Japanese on the side of the Chinese? For Chang kai chek (sun yat Sen was gone by then). Also, we had tons of "advisors" helping the Chinese too. And the whole oil embargo was huge, can't be understated.
Another possible motivation for Japan would have been the success of its German ally who was winning against the European empires and blowing up American supply ships. Japan probably thought it would have the same success
My big problem with all the people who seem to think the "massive soviet Juggernaut" did the heavy lifting is that they seem to ignore the entire allied air war. Germany was bombed into rubble by allied bombing runs that went on 24/7. Look at the difference in how the German army performed when they HAD parts, equipment, and a logistics train and then how they performed after the US and UK bombed the living hell out of them.
Yes i agree 100% But without the invasion of the soviet unions and stalingrad which was the final killing blow to hitler that led to his ultimate downfall it was decided during that battle when the sixth army fell.. the soviet union would later push toward Germany and the invasion of the USSR was a complete utter failure and I have no problem with people who say the USSR beat Nazi Germany because they did if you talk about the real bloody war that you hear about ww2 and the way Nazi Germany fell look to the Russia the amount of resources, the men, the casualties (my god the casualties of the USSR and Germany was colossal and the way that it was just fought within a bigger war that is ww2 is blowing my mind) yes the allies were bombing the crap out of Germany's infestracture, factories and strategic military points but without the invasion of the USSR it is possible Germany may or may not have won but the war will surely be longer than anticipated in simpler words in my knowledge...the allies were the thing destroying them within in their own territory but the soviets were the meat grinder that finished them off
The impacts of the bombing of Germany by the UK and are blown up significantly. Germany actually produced more military equipment in 1944 than previously, even tho they were being bombed constantly from 1941 onwards. It is far more complicated, and it is one of the reasons the British decides to go after the workers instead of just factories. The bombing of Hamburg, Cologne, Berlin etc. was significantly more effective in diverted German resources to defend against air attacks. The anti-air weaponry and intercept fighters were focused on defending the cities population and not factories. It is really those city bombings that actually changes something. Albert Spier who became Minister of Armaments is mostly responsible for the perception of the big impact of bombings, as he described it has a Western Front since all he did was try to work around the bombings to keep up production. He even says so in the 1970's BBC documentary on WW2.
Not so sure about that. Allied bombing of industry was described as relatively ineffective and waste of resources and manpower by both the Germans and by post-war analyses by allied nations.
@@Alderak1 The US bombing of Japanese villages and cities were significantly more effective. The misunderstood effectiveness of bombings, were a direct reason why Operation Rolling Thunder was done during Vietnam. Which would change the rules of war and make carpet bombing a war crime. In general bombing of factories is really ineffective unless you use enough precision guided missiles. The sporadic carpet bombings during WW2 were very minor in impact.
you can argue that the most the allied bombing campaign did was kill civilians, at least until the allied invasion. Eastern Europe didn't have the infrastructure to support a large scale invasion especially when the germans had too many variants of tanks/equipment which explains the lack of spare parts.
I said the same thing about “USA won the war”. Never in my life was I ever taught that or heard anyone say it. It may be that if we weren’t involved, they may have not won WW2, which I do think is true given our economic output prior to our actual inclusion. But honestly same reaction. I paused the video before you said it yourself and said the exact same thing. I always hear people from other countries but not actual Americans ourselves. But the reality is it really did take all of the big 3 to make it happen. To add to that, I do genuinely think it’s weird that Europeans claim that we came “late” to both wars. 1) They aren’t our wars to begin with. You can’t be late to something that doesn’t involve you. 2) it’s ONLY considered late because we did join. Our official inclusions into both wars were the final nail in the coffin. However the wars would’ve gone on a few more years if we hadn’t joined.
A few things to consider: Hitler's intention was to take eastern Europe and use their resources and manpower to turn Germany into a superpower and then fight a war with the USA while leaving Britain and their empire alone. So you could argue that it wasn't Britain's war either. Britain was the first country to declare war on Germany because they attacked another country. Roosevelt wanted the democracies of Europe to win because he saw the threat Germany could pose down the line. I think he would have joined the war sooner if he could have. Also Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa went to war with Britain even though they didn't have to and had tiny populations compared to the US. Although the US had the strongest economy of the allies the economies of the British Empire and Soviet Union were still bigger than the axis powers. The US also suspended Lend-Lease when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and only reinstated it when Germany declared war. I agree the war would've taken much longer without the US involvement but equally it would have been shorter if they'd joined in earlier.
I love that there’s so many amazing history channels on this platform. One thing I’m learning is that history has a lot of diverging perspectives and sources do it can be extremely difficult to reach consensus. I myself write music about history on my channel and when I’m researching a song sometimes information can be hard to follow and decide what is true or correct. I really appreciate the passion your channel and others have for History as a topic it’s extremely important.
VTH finally meets Fact Boy! He’s got a ton of great content on several channels. I think you’d like Biographics and his new channel Warographics. This is early on when they weren’t as polished but his stuff from the last 3 or so years is fantastic.
As a Canadian, I am always stunned and saddened how are brave soldiers are thoroughly overlooked ignored or forgotten for their war time contributions!! Just remember, Canada has never lost a war!!
We have Canadian war cemeteries here in England. I live near the International Bomber Command Centre in Lincoln, and it’s very much an international war memorial with Canadian servicemen included.
Growing up in the UK when there were still a lot of WW2 veterans about, I think that the whole "America Won The War" push back came a lot from all the Hollywood John Wayne type war movies that were being churned out at the time. I remember a film about Merrill's Marauders in Burma being particularly annoying to British Burma veterans.
Germany and Austria literally started WW1 and WW2 by invading other countries. You would be just as dumb to say that the US started the war with Japan. If you want to talk about the causes, then that's a different matter. @@ferdinandsiegel4470
As a sixty-two-year-old I was taught in school that both victories, World War 1 and World War 2, were because of the allies and not one single country. I think Russia had a predominant role in defeating Germany and the USA in the Pacific.
@@ferdinandsiegel4470 Hooray for the North Mexicans. You're forgetting the U.S.S.R. Without whom the Allies would have been still fighting into 1946. Possibly '47.
hey chris i just wanted to say that i love your channel im studying to be i history teacher in college and your content is amazing and entertaining it’s great to see other people have such a fascination with history and your videos make me happy on days when i feel down. love the content keep it up!
The fact that Flat Earth Theory is "making a comeback" is exactly the kind of idiocy that fuels my depression. It's mind-boggling how broken the idea is, particularly once you get to the nitty-gritty of "physics in general needs to not work" in order to sustain the theory.
As an American myself I agree that I don’t see Americans say we where mere chiefly responsible for winning both world wars. I think it would have be better if he had maybe talked about the over emphasis on d day in most western countries
There are quite a few bringing it up in political conversation, when they try to argue "we saved Europe" or "without us you would all be controlled by Nazis" etc. to "counter" if another someone from Europe criticizes the US. I mean you see this idea with recent political leaders.
@@carpediem5232 I only ever see this when Europeans also claim they or someone else are solely responsible. It just two people trying to put more emphasis on their country. Neither side would of likely won without the other.
@@razier5299 If the US would not have entered the war officially, but still would have helped economically Britain and the Soviets would likely still have won. The eastern front was lost for Germany before the US really became active. If the US would not have helped there would have been a real struggle and the outcome of the war is open ended. Because of US American exceptionalism it is in my experience way more likely to be started by an US American. Actually I never experienced anyone from Europe starting out with the claim that the US did nothing. More that the US overplayes it's role, which some/ quite a few do.
Please react to more of Simon Whistler! I highly recommend his Biographics channel where he gives succinct bios of historical figures such as Napoleon, Wellington, Lee, as well as many of the American presidents and English monarchs. He also has about a dozen other channels like Warographics and Today I Found Out, which I also highly recommend. Thanks, and Happy Easter!
@@rayquaza1245 hm, tbh, I’ve never really noticed his political bias. May I ask which videos in particular you think are biased? However, I do agree that his content is not always perfect, but it is generally a good starting point for someone like myself who is eager to learn more about history. I almost always find myself reading more sources about a historical figure/event after I watch his videos so that I can learn more about it
@@PaulGaither I’m sorry for taking your spotlight; I guess I didn’t see your comment before posting mine. I think you should keep your comment so that Chris will be more likely to react to Simon’s content in the future
It's been so long that it's weird seeing Simon without a beard. I love all of his channels. Biographics is excellent, as are Decoding the Unknown, Geographics, and Casual Criminalist.
I live for Casual Criminalist and Brain Blaze these days. I love all of his channels, but I just really enjoy seeing more of his personality get to bleed through in the form of his random tangents and rants. Good stuff
Ooh, Simon Whistler! I’m a fairly new subscriber and I’ve been wondering if you had done reactions to his stuff yet. He hosts numerous channels covering various topics, TopTenz being one of the most broad in scope and I believe his oldest one. I’d love to see some reactions to more of his content. There’s some where he goes a bit off the rails, doing cold reads with his off the cuff commentary, which may be harder to react to, but stuff like Biographics, Geographics, or the new Warograpghics might have some interesting videos worth engaging with.
I gotta say: I hate his content. From the moment I first saw his videos it seemed to me that his information is very bare bones - like not much research has gone into it. Just a quick wikipedia scan and that's it. Clearly Chris noticed the same thing, as he had to either add to or correct some of his content. Which is, to me, pretty inexcusable. Either know your stuff or admit to not being fully "informed". Obviously the 2nd option would warrent a different style of video. EDIT: It's, yeah, his videos are short so you have to condense. But condensing is different from literally just saying things that isn't factually correct. Plus there is such a thing as "too much condensing". Which I feel he's guilty of too.
@@brendan8593 I think that’s mainly an issue with the top ten format in general, not Simon’s style. I find his other channels which are more long form and have a narrower focus have better research. And he works with a variety of different writers…he’s more or less just a presenter. I do know from watching the more casual ones that the writers there tend to mention the deep work they’ve done into certain topics, including personal experience.
I agree with you on the huge amount of land lease sent to USSR by Allies. I do not necessarily say that germany could have defeated the soviets without allies sending huge amounts of weapons, food, cars, and airplanes, but it was an enormous help. For instance: Between June 1941 and May 1945, Britain delivered to the USSR: 3,000+ Hurricane aircraft 4,000+ other aircraft 27 naval vessels 5,218 tanks (including 1,380 Valentines from Canada) 5,000+ anti-tank guns 4,020 ambulances and trucks 15 million pair of boots Meanwhile the US: 427 284 trucks jeeps and trucks, 12 000 armored vehicle (7000 tank, which of 4102 were m4 sherman) 11 400 aircraft, and 4,5 million tons of food, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,67 tons of gasoline and oil, 1911 steam locomotives. During WWII, Germany produced: 87,329 semi-tracked trucks 347,490 military trucks and lorries 226,337 military cars Airplanes in total (fighters, bombers, ground-attack, transport etc) : 94,677 Tanks: 49 777 With the soviets own production, it was only time until germany was overwhelmed.
Thanks to the fine educational film "Ferris Bueller's Day Off". I am already well versed on #7... "Remember the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act? Anyone? Anyone?"
I’ve never understood why people think Americans believe we carried WW2 either. I feel like the people that think that are foreigners that watch a lot of American movies about our role in WW2 and think that because we are telling OUR story, we are trying to portray it as we did everything. When in reality those movies are telling the story of single companies, battalions, platoons, etc because it is our perspective.
There are lots of people who grew up with those movies and don’t remember what they learned in history class. I’m sure most people who use RUclips don’t think that, but your average 70 year old has had American militarist propaganda shoveled at them their entire life, and the counter narrative hasn’t been prominent for nearly as long
It probably comes a lot from hollywood potrayal of ww2. Western ww2 knowledge is heavily influenced by cold war anti-communist resentments. While I don't think that many people believe the US carried the war I still feel like the impact of them (in Europe) and the general believe of how the eastern front looked like is totally off. (Enemy at the gates comes to mind.) It's a bit the same as german people these days still believing that the german ww2 tanks (maybe even army) were the best on the field. Adding to that the pacific theatre of ww2 does also get played down a lot. Might be the same as Columbus that 30-40 years ago everybody believed that but now we know better. I'd assume that during the height of the cold war the perception of ww2 would be even more shaped through anti-communist and even german officers influenced.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I absolutely love what you add to these videos! You remind me of a very wise history teacher that all the kids loved to have. I think you're really cool. Keep up the great work!
As I have been watching WW2 a week at a time I have come to realize that while the US wasn’t involved militarily early in the war their involvement was a major contributor even in the early stages. Long before war was declared the US was keeping both Soviet and British efforts alive through efforts like the lend lease act. To diminish the US role even then would be like saying the mechanics who kept the planes flying had no role in the victory in the air war. It was in fact a combined effort of many nationals, all of whom had important roles that led to victory.
...i always find it fascinating though when " murican patriots " say covid wasnt a big thing when so many many mire died in US becausr of it rhan WWII thaht took "only" 400.000 , which they celebrate as greatest sacrifice ever.
Diubt it, without early help by US building plans, Material, crude and weapons, Uk goes under fast , Suez is free, nazis have oil, are fast behi d moscow, Japan joins war in rusdia moves westwards....Russia doesnt fight Bach with some backwater sibiria troops no matter the numbers
@@rumbletown1563 Yeah, I can't talk about two different sides of the globe in the same way at the same time, though. In the Pacific theatre, the US would have done to Japan what Russia did to Germany, by having the resources to build the fleets to own the sea and isolate the island countries (which Japan was) until they had to give up. It would have been a long process involving many more years, but with one inevitable outcome. Then Truman ended the whole thing immediately by throwing a couple nukes at them.
Regarding Japanese options in the Western Pacific, one should consider American popular opinion post-WW1, and into the 1930s. A majority of Americans believed they entered WW1 under Wilson's "Fourteen Points". Yet, the Versailles peace conference appeared to further British, French and Italian colonialism. Convincing Americans to go to war over European colonies in the Western Pacific would've been a hard sell. It was an attack on US territory without a Declaration of War that galvanized public opinion towards war. EVEN, then many Americans didn't believe that Germany and Italy was "their fight".
I'm looking forward to seeing your reaction to visiting the Little Bighorn battlesite. It is easily my favorite battlefield I've ever visited. The place is haunting. I don't think there's another battlefield anywhere where the landscape essentially unchanged except for the few roads to give access. In addition, as most bodies weren't touched for months after the battle, it allowed later investigators to place markers for every person that fell. You see them all over the place. It gives a surreal sense of the fighting. If you stand at the ridge where Benteen and Reno made their stand you see exactly why it was difficult to take that position after Custer fell -- 2d maps and pictures don't do it justice. I always imagined Custer's Last Stand to be some sort of hill but found was it a ridge that was relatively easy to flank on either side once you got to the top. It still was a pretty good climb to get there but I'm sure it wasn't hard for Native warriors. Custer didn't have enough men to defend the position but I don't blame Benteen or Reno. When he saw the size of the enemy Custer should have retreated to their position and waited for Gibbon/Terry but that wasn't his style. I hope you do a video blog when you visit. I made a poor attempt at one about ten years ago and even though the video quality is bad, I still enjoy watching it from time to time.
I visited the Little Bighorn battlefield ten years ago. I found the little gravestone markers where the bodies fell poignant. The Native American memorial was also very moving. A large circle slightly below ground level with an opening, the “Spirit Gate” facing uphill to the 7th Cavalry Monument.
This guy has a bunch of channels that are great. Biographics and infographics are Amazing history channels about people and places. Definitely give it a look
Also because they can tend to simplify there stuff sometimes, it leaves more room for Chris to create a deeper conversation and observation about the topic and talk more about it.
The other thing to note about Japan was that the army wanted a war against Russia, not the US, but in the end they went w/the Navy. It would be interesting to see what might have happened if they'd gone w/that.
The GeoHistory channel does a great job of showing the map of Columbus's discovery. He never discovered a landmass, just islands; he didn't come back to Europe reporting of a vast unexplored continent, just some kinda large islands.
The Nazis did NOT come to power through entirely free and fair elections. They were elected, yes, but they also employed thugs to intimidate voters and monitor polling stations.
I don't think that any history buff think that America won WW2 on its own, but I do think that the sentiment was prevalent in the US for a long time in the postwar era. We showed up and WW1 was won. We showed up when Britain was on the ropes and then we won WW2. I think Churchill himself marketed the war to Americans as them saving the world.
Its not that they called themselves Americans. Is that they didn't call themselves anything: United States of America doesn't mean anything. Mexico is called "United States of Mexico" and so on for other countries. It's a selfish, meaningless name, just like American culture and consciousness is selfish and meaningless.
the time in which we inhabit this world is so limited, and so unforgiving that It would be my honor to offer you a fresh start, and an opportunity to save your soul. the man who saved my life Is ruler over both land and sea. King over sky and Worm, and great beyond anything mankind has ever accomplished. today is a new day, let it be a new start for you with the Almighty Jesus Christ. God awaits you✝️
13:00 - I've always found the question of "What if Japan had just ignored the U.S. and gone after the Dutch East Indies oil?" particularly interesting. It would have put the U.S. in a bit of a predicament. Wanting to curb Japanese aggression, but having to justify going to war with a country on the other side of the world over a place many Americans couldn't point to on a map - especially with so much focus on what was going on in Europe.
@@colinp2238 He didn't mean to point out how ignorant you guys are, your people do that quite well. He meant to say that people in general are not happy to fight a war, much less somewhere unknown and far away
@@orlando7436 I'm a Brit and we know our way around and for over a year will still fighting Hitler when Europe was overrun and the US hadn't got off their arses.
@@colinp2238 Well if the European powers had listened to the US during the WW1 peace talks by not turning them into punitive measures to ruin Germany WW2 would likely not have happened in the first place.
"Greek geometers and philosophers had known that the earth, and heavens, were spherical for nearly a thousand years by St Augustine’s time(400)... The saint even warned Christians not to make themselves look foolish when talking with educated Greek and Roman pagans by insisting that the earth was flat." Chapman, Allan. Stargazers (which is fascinating, and great at questioning common historical narratives) He also has that to say about the Columbus /flat earth thing: "The story of the brave Christopher Columbus just knowing, from a species of superior wisdom, that he would not sail over the edge of the earth, and going on to defy all odds, is a modern legend. It dates from early-nineteenth-century American patriotic histories, in particular from Washington Irving’s 1828 popular “biography” of Columbus, .....Though for a long time enshrined in the United States elementary education system, the idea of a flat earth would have made any half-educated person of 1490 - or indeed of AD 490 - roll over laughing." The " " around Biography are his, not mine. As for another topic i'd recommend Dee Brown, Bury my heart at wounded knee. Which should actually be covered by school education.
I graduated from high school in 1996 in a small midwestern town. I thought the US was responsible for winning WWI and WWII at that time. That was the impression that I got from high school history, just like the Civil War wasn't about slavery. There are plenty of people, especially in the midwest and rural areas in general that believe the US was chiefly responsible for winning both wars. My high school history teacher told me that the US allowed Russia to take Hitler's bunker as a gift to them after we wiped out most of the German military.
The US Army did give the taking of Berlin to the Red Army. Your teacher was correct about that part. That was Eisenhower's decision, and not all of his generals were happy about it.
@@awilson2385 that is certainly interesting. I should read more on WWII. It just always seemed like the historical subject that was covered more than any other, so I've probably subconsciously avoided it.
I always find it bizarre that people give the USSR credit for the bulk of the work in WWII ... without mentioning that it might not have happened (certainly not to the same extent) had they not helped START WWII.
@@serathaevistille995 nothing is inevitable. USSR and Nazi Germany were likely to be enemies but it's likely France wouldn't have fallen and western front would have never closed
True. For two years Britain and its Commonwealth were fighting Germany alone while the Soviets and Germany not only were de facto allies having divided up Poland and having signed a non-aggression treaty, but the Russians were even selling critical metals, minerals, and oil to the Germans needed to carry on their war effort. One wonders how far that arrangement would have lasted had Hitler not decided to betray Stalin's trust and invade the Soviet Union in September of 1941 ... two months before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor -- and two years AFTER WWII started when Germany invaded Poland from the west ... and the Soviets from the east?
WW2 was chiefly the Nazis looking to wipe out the Jews and Slavs, so it rather speaks to the kind of people blaming the soviets (and presumably the jews) for "starting" ww2.
the soviets were prob scared of a 2 front war and the land was free gain and dont be on a high horse the brits owned a large portion of the world france aswedd usa owned alot aalmost all of africqa was under colonial rule they still have colonies the ussr di nothing to engache ww2 they made the the invation of poland go faster and made the germans invade earlier then if the soviets didnt sign it aand by then germany may have been even further ahead with military tech
I'm happy to recommend "How do German Schools teach about WW2" from this channel. As a German myself I can with all certainty say, what he says is in that video is a 100% true and maybe interesting to a history buff. :)
@kc korea It was never guilt, I would say, but rather a sense of responsibility (of all humankind really) that we do not repeat such a thing again. It is German history though, so that still makes us threat carefully about some stuff, because prejudices in the world are everywhere and some really only know Germany for it's darkest parts in history.
I recently discovered this channel and these videos are amazing! I’m in AP world history in school and I have my AP test coming up soon and I just wanted to say that these videos really add to my understanding of history. And it’s super interesting and entertaining at the same time! Thank you so much for the content :)
Columbus didn't underestimate the size of the Earth, the size of Asia had been overestimated, thanks to Marco Polo's book, a book that isn't even reliable to his own words. It also includes a mythical land of Sipangu, a land full of gold, which is actually Japan, the believed cradle of life. With the misjudged size of Asia, Sipangu lined up with Cuba and became El Dorado
I have been to Custer's Last Stand site and there was absolutely no way that he, and his men, were going to survive. When he started the fight, he sealed his fate and the Indians were easily able to surround his troops without him knowing until it was too late.
Hey man, justed wanted to thank you for all the effort you put in your RUclips channel. The videos really help me get trough the week, and whenever I’m in a dark space mentally your videos always bring a sense of comfort and for that I can’t thank you enough. I’m from the Netherlands and if you ever need help when you’re here just message me.
This isn't to say his video is bad; but it should be relabeled as "Top 10 Facts that aren't true but are believed by some people who don't actually have any real interest in history and have no clue".
I wouldn't even go so far as to say "10 Facts that aren't true" I would say "10 Facts that have some element of truth to them but require more context to understand fully".
Unfortunately I myself have met a few Americans who thought we won the war alone, and even worse I met a few who thought we fought both Germany and Russia. But that’s mostly due to the education system failing at its job. My own history class in high school just talked about three things in WW2, Pearl Harbor, the holocaust, and the bombs. I had to learn about the rest of the war by myself. I will say however even though Germany would’ve lost regardless, without America’s involvement, Stalin’s Soviet Union would’ve ruled over most of Europe without any real challenge and a new dark age would descend across the continent.
Wrong. How can you say Germany would've lost regardless when Nikita Khrushchev himself said the Soviet union "would have lost without US involvement"? He's referring to the American lend lease program that gave the USSR 13,000 battle tanks, 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 14,000 aircraft, loads of raw materials and equipment etc. The USA gave the soviets $11.3 billion ($180 billion in today's money) over the course of the war so to say Germany would've lost regardless is dumb and puts you in the category of people you were criticizing in your comment.
@@Ihateironyanddumbusernames I don't reccomend taking Khrushchevs word as the final one in this debate. Most of WW2 research shows, that USSR still comes up top in this conflict, thought with a lot more loses.
@@bigwoody4704 Zhukov said it, yes. But then again - it was what 9-10% of tanks and artillery guns? You should take a look at numbers and statistic, not "what some public person" have said. Couse, you know, there this thing as "politics" so some people, who in position o power really did not have the luxury of saing what they really want to say. And as someone, who has a BF with and old ass Moscvich, that still up and runnin (though it's, of cource, very obsolete car by today standarts) - i kinda disagree with you about "they make shit".
@@Theeight8b No on a whole scale they make crap or certainly did back thenThe t-34 had 2 xtra tranny's on board.The Russians actually liked the Sherman as it was dependable on the battle field
The truth is that it’s always more complicated, you can make an argument that the battle of the Atlantic was the ‘heavy lifting’ if the allies hadn’t won the tonnage war, contained the German surface fleet and held and subsequently defeated the u-boats the Nazis would probably have won in North Africa, made a second front impossible and would have freed them to concentrate on the Russians. You can say the same thing about the Battle of Britain, if Germany had reached air superiority and invaded Great Britain it would have been all over in the West. The perception that Americans won the war on their own is a direct consequence of Hollywood, it rewrites history and puts US actors and US characters where there weren’t any and the rest of the world knows better.
I've got to take exception to you claiming that American troops were on the ground in Europe in 1942. Although technically accurate, it was LATE in 42 when American ground troops arrived in the theatre, specifically for Operation Torch. That makes the American arrival in the European theatre almost exactly half way through the war. That, to my mind, makes them "Late"
On point #4, I was taught that the biggest impact of the Emancipation Proclamation, since it only applied to "States that were in open rebellion" was that it made the war about slavery, which kept the European powers out of the fight, since most of them had already abolished slavery (both the buying and possessing) at that point.
Disappointed in how the guy presented that Hitler came to power using the democratic process. Really like your correction on that. It is really important to recognize that if the elite is undemocratic, it is difficult to sustain democracy. Von Papen and his cronies were in the core undemocratic. Specifically he had this personal vendetta which drove him rather to see Hitler have power than see him "lose" compared to his rival.
I am British and live in Utah and have traveled widely around the USA a place I love dearly, but I have met scores and scores of Americans that think America won ww2 virtually alone, however many of the younger generation do not really know anything about ww2 and really do not care it seems. Not many Americans I know have any idea about ww2 due the lack of Hollywood movies on the subject and latterly computer games. The same is true in the UK where most think Britian stood alone against Germany when i fact the list of participants in British uniform was extensive, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa to name a few, not to mention that there were more soldiers from the Indian sub continent in the British army than there were British people.
I know this video is a year old. But my reasoning for US citizens being called Americans even though anyone North, South, and Central America are Americans but because America in part of the name of The United States of America that is why US citizens are called American.
The Viking thing never really sold me, the vikings never followed through from going to the New World and their "discovery" was lost until Columbus when permanent colonization began. Still think Columbus is the important historical figure, Vikings are just a footnote.
@@zepher664 Don't see what that has to do with anything. If their discovery didn't go anywhere it isn't much of a contribution to history except for trivia.
Here is my main issue with the Top 10 list here. The host seems to know just enough about history to make these general statements dangerous or misleading. As you pointed out, history is complicated. Many of these issues can be discussed for hours at length. Some of the facts pointed out in the video were also wrong oland/or not the complete picture.
@@crazymusicchick True. I know he's a channel host. My beef lies with his buddies who are researching all this and they don't do a fantastic job of it.
RE your comment about “events” I think of events like Black Tuesday, the assassination of FF, or similar as “triggers”, or perhaps “detonators”. I think it’s a legitimate answer to say “the explosion was caused by the person who pressed the button”, even if when pressed, obviously the questions like “who built the bomb?”, “who placed it?”, “why did they do it?” are obviously not that simple.
Amelia Earhart was not making an around-the-world flight 'solo'. Her navigator, Peter Noonan, was with her. And the Allies were on the European continent in 1943 when Sicily was attacked.
Columbus discovering America: I am 75 years old. In my second grade class was two very large paintings common for the time. One was George Washington crossing the Delaware. The other was Leif Erikson landing in North America. Not a secret.
I’ve had students and grown adults tell me that if not for America, WWI and WWII would’ve been losses. With respect, I think you may underestimate the amount of people who believe this.
Completely agree. I would say a ton of people (maybe even majority) believe this because people that I know that are "educated" definitely believe that we came in and won those wars.
24 minute mark. As a German immigrant to the USA I can with 110% certainty verify from personal experience that 9/10 Americans think they single handedly wrecked Germany in both world wars. Half of them don’t even know there was an Easter front
where do you live? as someone who’s lived in the US all my life, most people i know think that way about the pacific theater, however the coordination with the UK and soviet’s as they collapsed on germany is heavily taught in schools. not trying to discredit your experience but genuinely everyone i’ve ever met, even in the ultra-patriotic areas of texas which i now live, have i met an abundance of people who thought that
@@hesiiii I do hail restoration and follow hail around the country. I’ve been to almost every corner of the states and the ignorance on this subject is pretty universal throughout.
@@sevenstepsurvival interesting, from someone who’s lived here all my life, and traveled the country, it’s been the opposite. i find that the ignorant people are often the outspoken ones online. we can certainly agree to disagree
@@sevenstepsurvival i mean, that’s a lot different then thinking the US was the ONLY country resisting the germans. that’s the point i was responding to, as practically nobody i’ve ever met thought that
My Dad was born the son of a sharecropper on a cotton farm in West Texas in July of 1928, and he made it very clear in raising me that, for their part of the world, The Great Depression had arrived and was ramping up.
Fun history fact, Eratosthenes was the first person to measure the circumference of earth back in ~200BCE by building a pillar in Alexandria and having someone walk from said pillar to a well in Syene which came out to be 5,000 stadia (500 miles/800 km) he then measured the angle of the sun's rays by the pole (dividing the length of the shadow by the height of the pole) for an angle of 7.12 degrees. Since the Greeks already knew the earth was round and regarded it as a circle of 360 degrees he divided 360 by 7.2 (so that 360 would divide evenly) he arrived at a circumference for the earth of 250.000 stades (approximately 24,854 miles/40,000 km). Which as we now know was pretty damn close. Being only ~75km off
This video, not yours the original, seems largely semantical around most of the points. Could Japan have avoided war with the United States? Sure, but that would be ignoring a ton of things that had occurred or would have occurred if the Japanese went along with what he proposed. For example, if Japan had sought to conquer the Dutch holdings in East Asia -- much like you said -- America had already fully stated that in order to avoid war with the United States they would have to stop their wars of aggression and adding on another one against a European power that was so close to the American holdings in the Philippines. While I think that support for the war wouldn't have been nearly as high as it was after the Pearl Harbor attacks, war was mostly inevitable once the Japanese wars of expansion started. When it comes to his point about Japan just choosing to end their wars in China, first of all it would have been a political nightmare for Tojo Hideki and to some extent Emperor Hirohito to back off of the Chinese warlords who could have looked for any number of things at the diplomatic table. It would have been looked as a surrender to American political pressure without a shot being fired and in a nation defined by bushido at the time it would be largely impossible for these things to have occurred. Was Columbus the first European to discover the Americas? No, but he was the first European in centuries to discover that territory and his re-discovery of the Western hemisphere is what led to the colonization of the territories by European powers. Lief Erikson is an interesting figure, but in terms of historical relevance Columbus is easily the vastly more important figure of the two especially since knowledge of the "Vinland" was largely considered legend at that point in time. Did the United States win World War II on its own? Hell no, but American industry was the lifeblood of the allies and the Soviet Union. I'm not going to depreciate what the British, Russian, or even French Resistance did in order to destroy the Nazi regime but I hate it when Europeans depreciate all the good that the United States did in the world wars through our industrial capabilities. This isn't even touching on the misleading information that you touched on about the Nazi party's rise to power. Overall, it seems like the video tried to use a lot of double speak to push their points without ever really considering the real world consequences of the things that they're talking around. Sure the Vikings were the first Europeans to set foot on American soil, but their long-lasting effect on the continent was little to none and overstating their importance heavily downplays the importance of Isabella I as well as Spanish and Portuguese history with the Americas. Things like this matter in a historical context, and ignoring or downplaying their significance severely hinders the quality of any discussion on history.
I don't know much about the exact situation, but I doubt that the Japanese felt in any way that it was the Americans business of meddling what they invade or not. Especially considering what the Perry and by extension the Americans did to Japan 100 years prior. Considering the way their society worked for centuries, it seems much more likely that the Japanese could never lose face as much against outsiders tat aren't from the chosen country. Which doesn't mean that they had to necessarily go to war, however they could also not just give in the U.S demands. Which didn't leave much leeway for solutions especially considering the probably blatant lack of widespread enough understanding of each others cultures on a level to predict with conviction how the other side would react. On both sides.
I think it depends on where you live in regards to hearing "Americans won the war" for WWII. Most of the people I know (friends and family, most likely people on the street) would say that it was because of us that Germany and Japan were defeated. I have actually heard the phrase "If it wasn't for us they (Europe) would be speaking German" more than once and from more than one person.
I am 58 years old. My dad was a pilot in WW2. What I leaned back then,through the early 70s about WW2 seems to have come from a 40's or 50's Hollywood movie script. No one talked about the Russians dieing by the millions or the fact that Great Britain actually won the first BIG battle that started the loosing for the bad guys. The Battle of Britain should be added to Alamein,Stalingrad and Midway as the big battles that turned the war. I still think there are plenty of people who don't know and don't care. Hell I have a couple of nieces who couldn't find our own state on a map (Michigan) without reading names or use any analog time device. Just having a really hard time understanding how someone can be so busted up emotionally that they aren't capable of LOVING HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY. My heart breaks for these people.History and Geography for president!!!!!!!😍😍😍
I have to say the American centric education system did teach that the U.S. was responsible for ending WWI and WWII. I remember being taught that WWI was at a complete stalemate until the U.S. became involved. For WWII, it was taught that after D-Day the tide of the war changed. For WWII I later learned about Leningrad and Stalingrad and realized the Soviets were the ones who really won the European campaign. For WWI, I really did think the war was a complete stalemate until U.S. involvement.
14:16 Oversimplification here, but: Wasn't the point of Japan needing the oil was for their war machine? If they stopped their aggression, they wouldn't have badly needed the oil. So, one feeds into the other.
Because of racism in California, anti-immigrant laws were passed in the early 20th century that excluded the Japanese. This meant that the Japanese had nowhere to ship their expanding population and after the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, trade was no longer an option. So, the Japanese had to expand militarily or starve. Teddy Roosevelt said that he would prefer war with California to one with Japan.
Simon Whistler is one of the best script readers on RUclips. I'm fairly certain he reads a teleprompter as his knowledge of history is questionable at best.
Tbh he read to many things he totally transported he has no clue of it affects me getting behind the good content he spreads. Somehow he broke kayfabe and i cant go back.:-D
I have heard hundreds of military personnel make speeches and statements that the American effort won WWII. When discussing the nuances around specific combat efforts, these same people would often acknowledge the Soviets did most of the killing and dying. They would say stuff like England wouldn't have stayed undefeated without the USA, and that is what eventually led to overall victory, or if the Soviets had been allowed to keep fighting the Germans we would have eventually had to enter the war to fight them, etc.
None of what you said, though, means we won it by ourselves or were even the most important in winning. It just means victory wouldn’t have happened without the US. That is true. It also wouldn’t have happened without the Brits or the Soviets.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Agreed. You said you haven't heard anyone say this, and I had to listen to these pronouncements from so many "Military Leaders" while serving. There are plenty of people out there saying the US won WWII all by themselves, and evidence doesn't support that assumption.
"I don't want to say anything that they are going to say anyway" - Chris, that's the best thing about your videos! Also Greeks pretty much had the diameter of the Earth right - there is a great video of Carl Sagan explaining this. And generally my assumption would be that the biggest misconception people have are about medieval history or history of other parts of the world.
Hey. Long time viewer of your channel. Keep up the good work. You have very interesting content. I also gotta say. I am a Norwegian, and I think that most in my country at least, don't have the perception that Americans think that they alone won WW1 and WW2. I think those that do stems from the stereotype that Americans are arrogant. But I don't hold that view, and neither does anyone I know. We do recognize the contribution that they made in both wars though. Especially WW2. There is an old European saying about WW2 that goes like this: "WW2 was won by British Intelligence, American Steel, and Soviet Blood." And I think that is very accurate actually. :)
More than half this stuff is just some British guy thinking Americans don’t know anything about our own history. Also you’re definitely my favorite history channel keep up the awesome work
@@chrisklitou7573hilarious that you even attempt to say that while clearly verbalizing that you’re not from there. your interactions are through outspoken people online, not the actual general populous. most people know these things, and more. stop the blatant ignorance. most americans don’t know when they got their independence now?? july 4th 1776 is quite literally the most famous date in american history, and the most popular holiday other than christmas
23:40 I grew up in the church, evangelical christian, young life, WWJD, yearly missionary trips... Before I went to college, almost everyone I knew would say, "America bailed out Britain and Russia we (basically) won WWII for them" "Then those ungrateful commies went and turned against us!" 😂 Informal history class over lunch after Sunday school was wild times!
Here’s some more on Lindbergh and the men who crossed the Atlantic before him. While Alcock and Brown were the first to fly nonstop across the Atlantic, the first aircraft to fly across the Atlantic was the Curtiss NC-4, a U.S. Navy flying boat with a crew of five led by Albert Cushing Read, the commander and navigator. It took them 19 days to hop from New York to Lisbon, Portugal, via Massachusetts, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and the Azores. After reaching Lisbon, they then flew onto Plymouth, England via Spain. Returning to Lindbergh, though, what also helped push him into fame was the fact that he was competing for a prize. The Orteig Prize, set up by French-American hotel owner Raymond Orteig in 1919, was a $25,000 prize for the first crew to fly nonstop from New York to Paris or vice versa. Five separate teams from America and France had competed unsuccessfully for the prize, with a total of six deaths resulting from the failures of these attempts. Many of these pilots had been WWI fighter pilots like aces René Fonck and Charles Nungesser or had gone on previous record-setting flights such as polar explorer Richard Byrd. Lindbergh, by comparison, was not widely known outside the circle of midwestern airmail pilots flying the Chicago-St. Louis route. Comparatively speaking, he was more of the ordinary man in this race (if the son of a congressman and a pilot of that time could be called ordinary).
I learned a long time ago Take any video involving Simon Whistler with a grain of salt. The accuracy of their “research” is spotty at best. This goes for all of their channels
I’ve just graduated from college and was in high school not too long ago. I’m fairly confident that must people know that the US had help in both World Wars especially in WW2 with the allies
The Greek mathematician Eratosthenes determined the earth circumference to within 3% of the actual value, when he lived in Alexandria. He based his is based on measurements of a shadow in 2 wells (one in Alexandria and one in another town almost due South of this ) at noon. The errors in his calculations is almost certainly down to not having an exact distance between the wells.
Yep, I was going to add this! It looks like Columbus' misconception was mainly based on incorrectly converting units of measurement--the eternal bane of our collective existence.
The actual reason for his small inaccuracy is the inability to account for certain geographic features- like mountains
The error was also due to the fact that the Earth is not a perfect sphere
Needless to say, there were a lot of different variables that threw him off. XD
To add, a ton of people got close to the measurement of the earth circumference but around medieval times they realised due to technical limitations the best accuracy could not be more than 5% off the actual value which is pretty neato.
I've only heard one good argument in favor of flat earth: the earth's surface is 70% uncarbonated water, therefore the earth is flat.
the only way i could accept that as your answer is because you say water distributes equally along, making a flat surface, not mountains, hills ect. .... my counter argument in that case would be: waves
@@alexanderzack3720 Wasn't that a joke? In the sense, the earth is flat because the water isn't soda?
Haha
Probably because the aliens left the cap off of the planet for too long, letting all the carbonation escape. The flat-earthers were right all along!
Did the Flat Earth Society forget one thing: gravity??
About the false historical fact regarding US winning WWII I’m reminded of something my French tour guide at Normandy told said as he reflected on the genius of the Mulberry Harbor: “the war was won with British brains, American steel, and Russian blood”.
Or as the phrase has been said many times over by people other than that person. British intelligence, American fire power, and soviet man power.
Except in the Pacific, which many Europeans conveniently forget....
@@grumblesa10 Japan was a much weaker foe that was a threat because the European powers couldn't put their full power at them due to the axis. Also China was a big contributor.
@@Linesweeper I grant China was a contributor, but the US were flying supplies to them which they credit as assisting, as well as supplying combat troops and advisors (yeah Stilwell, but an advisor). British, French, Dutch naval power was DESTROYED, no other way to put it by Japanese surface, subsurface and air power. There is frankly zero comparison between the level of effort of the US forces and European in any sub-theater of the Pacific...
@@grumblesa10 British and French naval strength was never truly put against Japan, as they weren't seen as the real threat. Britain didn't just lose more ships to the Germans than the Japanese, they also lost more ships to the Italians. The European allies sunk more of their own ships than the Japanese did. Japan is heavily overstated as a great power. (Also Japan suffered many of their worst losses to British colonial troops. The resupplying via the Burma road is also a major factor in the war in China)
Amelia Earhart had a navigator with her on her pacific flight. She was the first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic in 1932 and had been the first woman to cross it as part of a 3 person crew in 1928.
and if you belive Star trek was kidnapped by aliens and taken to the delta quarent where one day the USS Voyager would find her and her navigator Fred Noonan and others from the 30s earth
I'm a historian myself and I would confidently claim to know a lot about modern Korean /Japanese / Chinese history. I had never considered the DUtch East Indies argument. Really made me think ... Kudos to the original video and to you for examining it.
I'm a rank amateur and I have wondered ('considered' is way too strong of a word,) "take Dutch East Indies, yet ignore The Philippines? Probably not? Probably can't?" End of wondering.
Seems like Japan hadn’t considered it either
And what if US chooses to cut off oil from DEI from ports in Philippines? It’s much more complicated geopolitically
@@Jonathan_D12 They invaded the DEI.
@@DanBorensthey did. The IJN General Staff considered bypassing the Philippines and taking Indonesia only. The Combined Fleet wanted to take the Philippines, as they felt the U.S. wouldn’t sit out a pacific war. Yamamoto, Admiral of the Combined Fleet, threatened to resign if Philippines/Pearl Harbor didn’t happen. The rest is history
Two quick clarifications: 1) Yes, the circumference of the earth was known to a fairly accurate degree, but Columbus miscalculated. He thought Asia was bigger than it was and the ocean smaller. He thought it was only 2700 miles from the Canary Islands to Japan. 2) I should have been more clear - it is true that the Emancipation Proclamation technically didn't apply to areas under Union control like New Orleans, however it still effectively ended slavery in those places as slaves ran to Union lines and simply lied about where they'd come from. Union commanders often didn't bother verifying it.
Update: Since I'm also getting a lot of comments about this one, here's a study that was done a few years ago about the idea of who won WW2. The bottom line? EVERY country overestimates their contribution to WW2. The country MOST likely to believe it was chiefly responsible for winning the war, by a wide margin, is not the US but Russia. www.psypost.org/2019/10/study-finds-people-overestimate-their-own-countrys-contribution-to-world-war-ii-54568
Here's another one. Germany, France, Denmark, Sweden and Finland all attribute the victory to the US more than any other Allied nation. Only the Brits and Norwegians in this study said Britain. yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2015/05/01/Britain-America-disagree-who-did-more-beat-nazis
(BTW I don't agree, just pointing out that it isn't just Americans who feel this way)
3) And yes I definitely misspoke when I said Amelia Earhart was flying solo...I intended to mean that she was the only one doing the flying but yes she had a navigator Fred Noonan with her, so she wasn't solo.
Also, the 13th amendment only made most aspects of slavery illegal. You could still enslave someone as punishment for a crime, which many states, cities, counties, and districts in the south actively did to blacks for the next 80 years.
I was already writing my angry comment about Eratosthenes being a badass. Calculating Earth circumference using a stick. And being off by 1-2%.
Hey man, no rush, I don’t mean to sound annoying, but it’d be cool if you would react to Monsieur Z’s video Woodrow Wilson again no rush and Peace. ✌🏻
Regarding the start of WW1
Yes the death of the Archduke set everything off but they've been wanting to beat each other up for years
@@agentspaniel4428 Yes, the killing of Franz Ferdinand and Sophie may have been the cause of the war but there were so many chances to stop it that weren't taken the only conclusion is some wanted the war, an example of this are the demands by Austria Hungary that could never be accepted by Serbia and the Kaiser needed to say that and persuade Austria Hungary to modify them rather than offering unconditional support to them.
Japan's options were pretty hobbled on the negotiating table by its own governmental structure at the time. The rest of the world didn't know this, but the military was practically operating independently of the civilian government by that point, and any civil official who tried to stop that found themselves not just removed from power, but straight-up assassinated by a mid-ranking Army official who'd get pardoned on the grounds of "excess of patriotism." Any time the civilian government would make a promise to stop attacking X or Y, the military would simply blow past that line in the sand, either via a false flag attack pretext or just ignoring it.
Of course, nobody in the West was privy to this (because you absolutely do not tell a foreign power that you're not in charge anymore) and the Japanese government as a whole was pretty much opaque to the outside observer, so for a while there the Americans just thought they were dealing with an absolute dictator who was also lying through his teeth every time he sat down to negotiate.
This would almost be hilarious if it weren’t so fucked up…
Didn't help that the IJA were assassinating IJN personnel or their government supporters and vice versa.
Can you link some info on this? I'd love to read because the perception i was taught was that the government wanted the military to fight to death
@@spjr99 The Extra History series on Japanese militarism is a great start ( ruclips.net/video/JEG09-Aynco/видео.html ) along with Dan Carlin's Hardcore History, specifically his Supernova in the East series.
To clarify a little more on the simplification I made about "civilian government" vs. "military," it was a little more complicated at the time, especially due to factions duking in out in the legislature.
Also one thing that I see that both of the videos ignores...is the fact that what caused the embargo in the first place and completely destroyed the relations with the US was the occupation of French Indochina by Japan (obviously this move was made by the military, which completely ignored any diplomacy). Sure the US also demanded that Japan stops all its aggressions in Asia (I'm pretty sure it demanded it pull out of its conquests as well, but whatever). If the US got hissy over a fairly minor colony of Indochina, it sure as hell would never let Japan just take the Dutch East Indies.
Oh man you've unlocked a gold mine of content with Simons stuff...its good, just not very deep, it's basically Wikipedia level descriptions, but Simon is a good presenter and they're good entry level videos for people. And if you do anymore of his videos, just remember that Simon isn't an expert on the topics he talks about, he's a presenter paid by people to read scripts on screen written by others, it's a whole operation of channels and I'm surprised you've only just found it all haha.
This^^
Very true. I would never hate on Simon for being incorrect about something. I'm not sure what behind the scenes contributes he makes to videos he's in, but he definitely isn't the sole researcher. It's not a one man show.
It's Wikipedia-level because it is Wikipedia. Pull-up one of the articles sometime then read along with Simon. His writing team flat-out rips the Wiki entries word-for-word at times.
I quit watching his videos because I often found them to be click baiting.
Simon produces his videos to make money, not to educate people, thus they are pretty lackluster and soulless most of the time. He has tons of channels all of the same formula. Don't get me wrong, this is a legit way to produce videos, but i don't enjoy any videos from him and avoid his content and spent my 0,5 cents from ad revenue preferably to another youtuber.
As a European,you often get Americans saying, if it weren't for us you would be speaking German. While is obvious, that US support was an integral part, especially US industrial might.
As far as fighting in Western Europe in WW2, you can't overlook the absolute bravery of the various resistance movements in the Occupied countries.
You are very correct to point out the likes of the Italians in WW1. That front was savage, and very overlooked in folk history of the period.
Very impressed by your detailed and well rounded knowledge. You have yourself a new subscribed. Thanks for your well thought out analysis of these events, and you have yourself a new subscriber.
And funnily enough, German is the second most spoken language in the EU.
The only Americans who say that are those who don't study history or global geopolitics or anything and are also overly patriotic to the point they believe the United States is far and away the greatest country on Earth. It's a bunch of untraveled and uncultured fools to put it bluntly. Every country has those people, but our large population and large size causing international travel to be more expensive means we have a lot of those people. It's best not to argue with them because they won't listen to reason. Most Americans do not believe and say such things, though.
Literally every single person in Europe would be rather speaking German and live like Germany, than speaking russia, which was forced on us by russian invaders.
Ukrainians won World War 2 in Europe when First Ukrainian Front army took Berlin and defeated Nazi Germany, and West betrayed us by shaking hands with Stalin in temporary occupied Yalta, Crimea, Ukraine.
American lend-lease helped, but the end result was us being enslaved by the russians. As was half of Europe. Allies didn't win WW2 as it started over defending Poland from German and russian joint invasion of 1939, and ended up giving entire Poland and more to moscow's reign of terror.
Also in return you'll often get Europeans saying Americans did almost nothing in WW2, which is just as ridiculous.
@@beageler The most spoken language in the EU is German. In Europe German 2nd
Minor correction: You said Amelia Earhart was attempting to fly around the world solo. She wasn't making that flight solo. She had a navigator, Fred Noonan, who also likely died wherever it was that they crashed.
Wow, talk about "misinformation ". If he was along as navigator (or in any capacity), how can this be designated a 'Solo' flight? I can see why rally car drivers get so much credit, but don't think it would be logical to say they were driving Solo. Does not compute.
@@JH-ji6cj it wasn't designated a solo flight. He just misspoke. I was just correcting that. There's no misinformation here, just an honest mistake.
@@monkeyflower3851 Fair Enough. He definitely operates in good faith as far as I've ever seen
True. additionally it was supposed to be a three person flight. The third being a radio operator. Earhart almost had a crash on takeoff before starting the Pacific leg of the journey and the Radio man quit. Earhart tried to operate the radio herself, and issues with the radio were a major factor in her crash. She was supposed to hone in on a US navy ship via radio so she could find a small island on the Pacific crossing for refueling. But while she could send out messages, she was tuned to the wrong frequency to receive returns from the ship and became lost.
@@JH-ji6cjLoosen the bolts on your tinfoil hat, life with be a lot less scary when you realize that not everybody is out to get you.
I always liked the quote, "World War 2 was won with American steel, British intelligence, and Soviet blood."
The Allied victory was a group effort; even small nations gave it their all.
The same people that tell you the Soviets did 99% of the effort will also tell you how significant the french resistance was
Thats a very good point. Australia for example ended up being the worlds biggest forward supply base for the US efforts in the Pacific. New Zealand became the flying school for the Empire in the first half of the war.
@@chasespeer251 why would you say that the french resistance Was Not signicant? Of course, there were a lot of Problems, first and foremost that the resistance was not at all a unified force. Yet under British Management, the resistance archieved important things. Mainly on and around D day, the infrastructure destroyed by the resistance was crucial in preventing the Axis to quickly counterattack the Allied beachheads.
@@chasespeer251 tbh I'd say soviets did about 90% of the effort of actually turning the tide of war against Germany. Everyone else contributed a lot in the counter-offensive, but the war was won in 1943, at that point it was just a question of when will Germany surrender, not if.
@@kolosmenus in 1943 the Allies destroyed the African front, invaded Italy, bombed Germany heavily and started to prepare plans for DDAY just in case. The US also produced over 100,000 vehicles and Over 100 million rounds of ammunition and gave these things produced to the UK, French and Soviets as well as our own troops.
I am happy that you talked about Nummer 8. I was a little shocked about this simplification of things and so I was relieved that you corrected this.
In defense of Brüning: He really did not have much choice but to rule without the parliament. A key issue of the Weimar republic was that democrats (meaning people who support democracy) had no secure majority. The so called Weimar coalition of social democrats, liberals and Brünings catholic center party were the only ones committed to it, most of the time the national liberals had to be included to keep the government able to function. The national liberals were monarchists but they feared that the communists would take over if the republic became to weak, so they supported it for the time being.
But coalitions were always fragile and snap elections were the norm. In the face of economic crisis the rifts between the democratic parties became even more visible and at the same time communists and national socialists got ever more votes, they battled each other in the streets but regularly voted together in parliament as a destructive majority, a bunch of small special interest parties with a handful of seats did not help either.
Brünings bypassing of the dysfunctional parliament was therefore generally supported by many democratic forces but it could not continue forever. The plan of the faction around Papen, which was very influential with president Hindenburg, was to make Hitler chancellor, to get the support of the biggest voting block, while secretly control this political greenhorn and calling the shots themselves. We all know how that worked out
"[...] at the same time communists and national socialists became ever more votes..."
Ah ja, das berühmte become/bekommen ^^
@@srccde
Argh. Wie peinlich 😅
The funny thing about Papen’s plan is that’s exactly why the guy before him suggested Papen become Chancellor. He was using a scheme that was used against him. The difference was, Papen was easy to manipulate, Hitler wasn’t.
Two thoughts on this. First, the big problem with Bruning was his economic policies to intentionally bankrupt Germany to get the Allies to drop the Versailles reparations payments, to rob the NSDAP and DNVP of their biggest gripe. It stopped the payments as planned, but by causing an unemployment crisis and banking collapse it ended up totally backfiring and growing the Nazi vote.
Secondly people often overlook the key element of Von Papen's plan to control Hitler. Cabinet operates on collective responsibility, meaning votes are binding on all members. White Hitler was made Chancellor he was only given 3 of 11 Cabinet posts, meaning the Nazis could always be outvoted by Papen's Zentrum Party and the DNVP. That would finally be a way to silence Hitler and control him. He would be Chancellor, but have no real power. Unfortunately for Papen what he didn't plan on was Hitler immediately using his power as Chancellor to call a new election and using his new control of the police to rig that election.
@@crzylkfx Oy vey.
Simon has gotten so much better as time has gone on.
He can be really funny with his out-of-context quotes to start Business(Brain) Blaze videos, or super-serious on Biographics about despots, dictators or other dark topics.
He’s a great presenter, but here, he was very young in his online career, as well as his voice wasn’t fully where it is today.
Simon did get a lot better at this stuff, but has recently been making some lazy videos where he tries to rely too much on his personality in place of research. It doesn't work.
@@HercuLync the problem is youtube shorts and the type of videos, and the fact many youtubers have to do shorts just because of the algorithm
Simon and VTH are my favorite RUclips history folks.
I didn’t recognize him without his glorious beard.
That dude and all 300 of his channels are terrible. Unwatchable nonsense.
As an Australian I'll always be eternally grateful for what the US did in the Pacific. Without the US island hopping campaign it's unlikely Australia could've held off Japan. We certainly didn't have the naval power and had a significantly smaller fighting force
Right but the Asian Nazis would have been very overstretched.
Japan actually had no intention on going any further the Papua new Guinea. They had considered it but dismissed it as to hard due to supply, distance and the size of the country. Australia was actually militarily quite powerful by the end of the war and at one point had something like the 2nd largest military spending for a brief time. The biggest issue Australia faced immediately was the bulk of our army and airforce was in Africa so we had to send reserves to png to hold them back while we ordered our men back from Africa but the bulk of the airforce stayed. India actually had the biggest military presence in Asia fighting in China and the like.
I don't think Japan ever makes it to Australia. Their army couldn't even pacify China, which remained a problem for Japan throughout the war.
I gotta say, I was kinda expecting him to bring up the Napoleon not being short one. That is far more of a historical misconception that far more people hold than like half of these.
That is very true. Anyone who still thinks that should watch the OverSimplified video, which is good.
I find it funny that, that misconception happened bassically because of good old British name calling.
I had an argument with my mom and aunt about this a while back. I was shocked that they still hadn’t found out it was a myth. They were eerily defensive about it before I forced them to do a quick Google search. Next thing you know they were perfectly calm and wanted nothing to do with the conversation, despite practically yelling at me mere moments prior.
Why are adults so defensive about outdated information?
How tall was Napoleon?
@@ayemod2k around 5' 6" to 5' 7"
12:53 option 1 was never going to happen. Japan leaving China was a condition for Japan coming to the table to end the embargo, all of it, including Manchuria. As for 2. Japan (in my view rightly) assumed the us wouldn't let them attack a ton of territory right next to us territories and protectorates without further action. Regardless these are technically "other options* so the point is technically correct but they aren't options I would take if I ruled Japan at the time, it's a pure hindsight option.
Right. And the thing this guy is completely ignoring here in the video is that the US did involve itself in the European war on the side of the British. Not officially, but we did effectively give them a bunch of money, supplies, equipment, and even volunteers in exchange of some military bases in the West Indies and Newfoundland. I would have absolutely no doubt that if Japan invaded the Dutch East Indies and British East Asia, the US would involve itself there too, especially considering the US actively said it would defend European Southeast Asian colonies from Japanese aggresion. Whether directly or not, I don't know, but to say FDR couldn't push through sending men, money, and materiale to help the British and Dutch in the Pacific is ignorant at best, and purposely disingenous at worst.
@@occam7382 everyone knows the us was financially supporting the British. Not new information
@@sourlemon1002, yeah, but the guy in the video talks about the US not willing to enter the European war in support of the British in a way that implies the US wasn't helping the British at all. Which is absolutely untrue. And then he uses that to justify saying how the US wouldn't have involved themselves in a Pacific war where they themselves aren't attacked, which again, it total bullshit.
Agreed.
Weren't there whole air squadrons like the all African American one "flying tigers" I think that were fighting the Japanese on the side of the Chinese? For Chang kai chek (sun yat Sen was gone by then).
Also, we had tons of "advisors" helping the Chinese too.
And the whole oil embargo was huge, can't be understated.
Another possible motivation for Japan would have been the success of its German ally who was winning against the European empires and blowing up American supply ships. Japan probably thought it would have the same success
My big problem with all the people who seem to think the "massive soviet Juggernaut" did the heavy lifting is that they seem to ignore the entire allied air war. Germany was bombed into rubble by allied bombing runs that went on 24/7. Look at the difference in how the German army performed when they HAD parts, equipment, and a logistics train and then how they performed after the US and UK bombed the living hell out of them.
Yes i agree 100% But without the invasion of the soviet unions and stalingrad which was the final killing blow to hitler that led to his ultimate downfall it was decided during that battle when the sixth army fell.. the soviet union would later push toward Germany and the invasion of the USSR was a complete utter failure and I have no problem with people who say the USSR beat Nazi Germany because they did if you talk about the real bloody war that you hear about ww2 and the way Nazi Germany fell look to the Russia the amount of resources, the men, the casualties (my god the casualties of the USSR and Germany was colossal and the way that it was just fought within a bigger war that is ww2 is blowing my mind) yes the allies were bombing the crap out of Germany's infestracture, factories and strategic military points but without the invasion of the USSR it is possible Germany may or may not have won but the war will surely be longer than anticipated in simpler words in my knowledge...the allies were the thing destroying them within in their own territory but the soviets were the meat grinder that finished them off
The impacts of the bombing of Germany by the UK and are blown up significantly.
Germany actually produced more military equipment in 1944 than previously, even tho they were being bombed constantly from 1941 onwards. It is far more complicated, and it is one of the reasons the British decides to go after the workers instead of just factories.
The bombing of Hamburg, Cologne, Berlin etc. was significantly more effective in diverted German resources to defend against air attacks. The anti-air weaponry and intercept fighters were focused on defending the cities population and not factories. It is really those city bombings that actually changes something.
Albert Spier who became Minister of Armaments is mostly responsible for the perception of the big impact of bombings, as he described it has a Western Front since all he did was try to work around the bombings to keep up production. He even says so in the 1970's BBC documentary on WW2.
Not so sure about that. Allied bombing of industry was described as relatively ineffective and waste of resources and manpower by both the Germans and by post-war analyses by allied nations.
@@Alderak1 The US bombing of Japanese villages and cities were significantly more effective.
The misunderstood effectiveness of bombings, were a direct reason why Operation Rolling Thunder was done during Vietnam. Which would change the rules of war and make carpet bombing a war crime.
In general bombing of factories is really ineffective unless you use enough precision guided missiles. The sporadic carpet bombings during WW2 were very minor in impact.
you can argue that the most the allied bombing campaign did was kill civilians, at least until the allied invasion. Eastern Europe didn't have the infrastructure to support a large scale invasion especially when the germans had too many variants of tanks/equipment which explains the lack of spare parts.
I said the same thing about “USA won the war”. Never in my life was I ever taught that or heard anyone say it. It may be that if we weren’t involved, they may have not won WW2, which I do think is true given our economic output prior to our actual inclusion. But honestly same reaction. I paused the video before you said it yourself and said the exact same thing. I always hear people from other countries but not actual Americans ourselves. But the reality is it really did take all of the big 3 to make it happen.
To add to that, I do genuinely think it’s weird that Europeans claim that we came “late” to both wars. 1) They aren’t our wars to begin with. You can’t be late to something that doesn’t involve you. 2) it’s ONLY considered late because we did join. Our official inclusions into both wars were the final nail in the coffin. However the wars would’ve gone on a few more years if we hadn’t joined.
A few things to consider:
Hitler's intention was to take eastern Europe and use their resources and manpower to turn Germany into a superpower and then fight a war with the USA while leaving Britain and their empire alone. So you could argue that it wasn't Britain's war either. Britain was the first country to declare war on Germany because they attacked another country.
Roosevelt wanted the democracies of Europe to win because he saw the threat Germany could pose down the line. I think he would have joined the war sooner if he could have.
Also Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa went to war with Britain even though they didn't have to and had tiny populations compared to the US.
Although the US had the strongest economy of the allies the economies of the British Empire and Soviet Union were still bigger than the axis powers.
The US also suspended Lend-Lease when Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and only reinstated it when Germany declared war.
I agree the war would've taken much longer without the US involvement but equally it would have been shorter if they'd joined in earlier.
Simon is probably top 10 in internet recognizability. He reads for at least 10 different large RUclips channels.
Hands up if you first heard about the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in Ferris Bueller’s Day Off. Anyone? Anyone?
That would be me.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Haha!!
Weird seeing Simon without a beard now...
I was like omg he finally found Simon and then I was like.... Wait.... Old Simon lmao
I seriously cannot explain why I enjoy your videos so much, but I have been binging them lately. thank you so much for your content.
I love that there’s so many amazing history channels on this platform. One thing I’m learning is that history has a lot of diverging perspectives and sources do it can be extremely difficult to reach consensus. I myself write music about history on my channel and when I’m researching a song sometimes information can be hard to follow and decide what is true or correct. I really appreciate the passion your channel and others have for History as a topic it’s extremely important.
Simon is the reason I fell into the RUclips rabbit hole. I love all of his channels, especially Brain Blaze!
Legend!
VTH finally meets Fact Boy! He’s got a ton of great content on several channels. I think you’d like Biographics and his new channel Warographics. This is early on when they weren’t as polished but his stuff from the last 3 or so years is fantastic.
I would recommend the cynical historians video on top 10 Soviet history myths if your interested in top 10 lists!
She’s 10 myths about slavery is also pretty good.
As a Canadian, I am always stunned and saddened how are brave soldiers are thoroughly overlooked ignored or forgotten for their war time contributions!! Just remember, Canada has never lost a war!!
Canada kicked butt, they won us so many battles. Again in Iraq
We have Canadian war cemeteries here in England. I live near the International Bomber Command Centre in Lincoln, and it’s very much an international war memorial with Canadian servicemen included.
@@schlempfunkleIraq war was a desaster that destabilized the Middle-East to this day. Canadians kicked humanity in the butt
Growing up in the UK when there were still a lot of WW2 veterans about, I think that the whole "America Won The War" push back came a lot from all the Hollywood John Wayne type war movies that were being churned out at the time. I remember a film about Merrill's Marauders in Burma being particularly annoying to British Burma veterans.
If the USA stayed out of the WWII. England and France started WWI and they damn near lost both wars before the USA showed up.
Germany and Austria literally started WW1 and WW2 by invading other countries. You would be just as dumb to say that the US started the war with Japan. If you want to talk about the causes, then that's a different matter. @@ferdinandsiegel4470
@@ferdinandsiegel4470 A fine example of those who think along such lines. Just the sort of people that this channel's presenter thought did not exist.
As a sixty-two-year-old I was taught in school that both victories, World War 1 and World War 2, were because of the allies and not one single country. I think Russia had a predominant role in defeating Germany and the USA in the Pacific.
@@ferdinandsiegel4470 Hooray for the North Mexicans. You're forgetting the U.S.S.R. Without whom the Allies would have been still fighting into 1946. Possibly '47.
I wouldn't call the Sturmabteilung threatening to beat you up at the ballot box to be a fair and free election
hey chris i just wanted to say that i love your channel im studying to be i history teacher in college and your content is amazing and entertaining it’s great to see other people have such a fascination with history and your videos make me happy on days when i feel down. love the content keep it up!
The fact that Flat Earth Theory is "making a comeback" is exactly the kind of idiocy that fuels my depression. It's mind-boggling how broken the idea is, particularly once you get to the nitty-gritty of "physics in general needs to not work" in order to sustain the theory.
It is mid-boggling but also one of my great joys to see RUclips video's that ridicule these people.
As an American myself I agree that I don’t see Americans say we where mere chiefly responsible for winning both world wars. I think it would have be better if he had maybe talked about the over emphasis on d day in most western countries
There are quite a few bringing it up in political conversation, when they try to argue "we saved Europe" or "without us you would all be controlled by Nazis" etc. to "counter" if another someone from Europe criticizes the US. I mean you see this idea with recent political leaders.
@@carpediem5232 I only ever see this when Europeans also claim they or someone else are solely responsible. It just two people trying to put more emphasis on their country. Neither side would of likely won without the other.
It's far more prevalent in social media, reddit etc. Not with people that know anything about history.
@@razier5299 If the US would not have entered the war officially, but still would have helped economically Britain and the Soviets would likely still have won. The eastern front was lost for Germany before the US really became active. If the US would not have helped there would have been a real struggle and the outcome of the war is open ended.
Because of US American exceptionalism it is in my experience way more likely to be started by an US American. Actually I never experienced anyone from Europe starting out with the claim that the US did nothing. More that the US overplayes it's role, which some/ quite a few do.
The US was chiefly responsible for WW2 and probably WW1, too. It was through industry rather than pure force.
Did you notice that Simon said Columbus spent “all his time in the East Indies.” He meant West Indies, of course.
Yea I noticed that too lol. "Meanwhile, Columbus built a villa in Singapore."
That isn't even correct either, columbus also landed in present day venezuela, he was the first european to arrive in south america
@@SP-td9xj Well yes, but I was talking about the greater error.
I find it to be a massive issue that I learned all this in high school and many others still haven't learned it. Our schools need a serious overhaul.
Please react to more of Simon Whistler! I highly recommend his Biographics channel where he gives succinct bios of historical figures such as Napoleon, Wellington, Lee, as well as many of the American presidents and English monarchs. He also has about a dozen other channels like Warographics and Today I Found Out, which I also highly recommend. Thanks, and Happy Easter!
Not a fan tbh. His stuff is so half baked since he has like 12 channels to run. Also there is a clear political slant to many of his videos
I commented the same and have deleted it, as you deserve the credit. I guess that this can be added to the list.
@@rayquaza1245 hm, tbh, I’ve never really noticed his political bias. May I ask which videos in particular you think are biased? However, I do agree that his content is not always perfect, but it is generally a good starting point for someone like myself who is eager to learn more about history. I almost always find myself reading more sources about a historical figure/event after I watch his videos so that I can learn more about it
@@PaulGaither I’m sorry for taking your spotlight; I guess I didn’t see your comment before posting mine. I think you should keep your comment so that Chris will be more likely to react to Simon’s content in the future
@@Anonymoususer44569 - No, you didn't. I commented after you and deleted it because I saw yours.
It's been so long that it's weird seeing Simon without a beard. I love all of his channels. Biographics is excellent, as are Decoding the Unknown, Geographics, and Casual Criminalist.
Young Simon is weird looking. 🤣
I'm cold just looking at his beardless face. 😂
I live for Casual Criminalist and Brain Blaze these days. I love all of his channels, but I just really enjoy seeing more of his personality get to bleed through in the form of his random tangents and rants. Good stuff
That was the first thing I thought and I also love all his channels.
I had the same reaction. Never seen him without the beard!
Ooh, Simon Whistler! I’m a fairly new subscriber and I’ve been wondering if you had done reactions to his stuff yet. He hosts numerous channels covering various topics, TopTenz being one of the most broad in scope and I believe his oldest one. I’d love to see some reactions to more of his content. There’s some where he goes a bit off the rails, doing cold reads with his off the cuff commentary, which may be harder to react to, but stuff like Biographics, Geographics, or the new Warograpghics might have some interesting videos worth engaging with.
I gotta say: I hate his content. From the moment I first saw his videos it seemed to me that his information is very bare bones - like not much research has gone into it. Just a quick wikipedia scan and that's it. Clearly Chris noticed the same thing, as he had to either add to or correct some of his content. Which is, to me, pretty inexcusable.
Either know your stuff or admit to not being fully "informed". Obviously the 2nd option would warrent a different style of video.
EDIT:
It's, yeah, his videos are short so you have to condense. But condensing is different from literally just saying things that isn't factually correct. Plus there is such a thing as "too much condensing". Which I feel he's guilty of too.
@@brendan8593 I used to agree but some of his more recent content has been well researched. 3 or 4 years ago his content was way more surface level.
@@brendan8593 I think that’s mainly an issue with the top ten format in general, not Simon’s style. I find his other channels which are more long form and have a narrower focus have better research. And he works with a variety of different writers…he’s more or less just a presenter. I do know from watching the more casual ones that the writers there tend to mention the deep work they’ve done into certain topics, including personal experience.
@@brendan8593 I agree, I stopped watching his videos for this very reason.
@@LuxRoyale Well, I guess I haven't really watched him in years. Fair enough if it's better now
I agree with you on the huge amount of land lease sent to USSR by Allies. I do not necessarily say that germany could have defeated the soviets without allies sending huge amounts of weapons, food, cars, and airplanes, but it was an enormous help.
For instance:
Between June 1941 and May 1945, Britain delivered to the USSR:
3,000+ Hurricane aircraft
4,000+ other aircraft
27 naval vessels
5,218 tanks (including 1,380 Valentines from Canada)
5,000+ anti-tank guns
4,020 ambulances and trucks
15 million pair of boots
Meanwhile the US: 427 284 trucks jeeps and trucks, 12 000 armored vehicle (7000 tank, which of 4102 were m4 sherman) 11 400 aircraft, and 4,5 million tons of food, 35,170 motorcycles, 2,67 tons of gasoline and oil, 1911 steam locomotives.
During WWII, Germany produced:
87,329 semi-tracked trucks
347,490 military trucks and lorries
226,337 military cars
Airplanes in total (fighters, bombers, ground-attack, transport etc) : 94,677
Tanks: 49 777
With the soviets own production, it was only time until germany was overwhelmed.
Thanks to the fine educational film "Ferris Bueller's Day Off". I am already well versed on #7... "Remember the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act? Anyone? Anyone?"
Oh boy, you’ve entered the Simon wormhole. There’s no escaping.
I’ve never understood why people think Americans believe we carried WW2 either. I feel like the people that think that are foreigners that watch a lot of American movies about our role in WW2 and think that because we are telling OUR story, we are trying to portray it as we did everything. When in reality those movies are telling the story of single companies, battalions, platoons, etc because it is our perspective.
There are lots of people who grew up with those movies and don’t remember what they learned in history class.
I’m sure most people who use RUclips don’t think that, but your average 70 year old has had American militarist propaganda shoveled at them their entire life, and the counter narrative hasn’t been prominent for nearly as long
It probably comes a lot from hollywood potrayal of ww2. Western ww2 knowledge is heavily influenced by cold war anti-communist resentments. While I don't think that many people believe the US carried the war I still feel like the impact of them (in Europe) and the general believe of how the eastern front looked like is totally off. (Enemy at the gates comes to mind.) It's a bit the same as german people these days still believing that the german ww2 tanks (maybe even army) were the best on the field. Adding to that the pacific theatre of ww2 does also get played down a lot. Might be the same as Columbus that 30-40 years ago everybody believed that but now we know better. I'd assume that during the height of the cold war the perception of ww2 would be even more shaped through anti-communist and even german officers influenced.
I've said it before and I'll say it again; I absolutely love what you add to these videos! You remind me of a very wise history teacher that all the kids loved to have. I think you're really cool. Keep up the great work!
As I have been watching WW2 a week at a time I have come to realize that while the US wasn’t involved militarily early in the war their involvement was a major contributor even in the early stages. Long before war was declared the US was keeping both Soviet and British efforts alive through efforts like the lend lease act. To diminish the US role even then would be like saying the mechanics who kept the planes flying had no role in the victory in the air war. It was in fact a combined effort of many nationals, all of whom had important roles that led to victory.
If the US hadn't been involved at all, the Soviets still would have won, they just would have ended up owning all of Europe to the Atlantic.
@@elbruces Japan though 🇯🇵. Ww2 didn’t take place entirely in Europe
...i always find it fascinating though when " murican patriots " say covid wasnt a big thing when so many many mire died in US becausr of it rhan WWII thaht took "only" 400.000 , which they celebrate as greatest sacrifice ever.
Diubt it, without early help by US building plans, Material, crude and weapons, Uk goes under fast , Suez is free, nazis have oil, are fast behi d moscow, Japan joins war in rusdia moves westwards....Russia doesnt fight Bach with some backwater sibiria troops no matter the numbers
@@rumbletown1563
Yeah, I can't talk about two different sides of the globe in the same way at the same time, though.
In the Pacific theatre, the US would have done to Japan what Russia did to Germany, by having the resources to build the fleets to own the sea and isolate the island countries (which Japan was) until they had to give up.
It would have been a long process involving many more years, but with one inevitable outcome.
Then Truman ended the whole thing immediately by throwing a couple nukes at them.
Regarding Japanese options in the Western Pacific, one should consider American popular opinion post-WW1, and into the 1930s. A majority of Americans believed they entered WW1 under Wilson's "Fourteen Points". Yet, the Versailles peace conference appeared to further British, French and Italian colonialism.
Convincing Americans to go to war over European colonies in the Western Pacific would've been a hard sell. It was an attack on US territory without a Declaration of War that galvanized public opinion towards war. EVEN, then many Americans didn't believe that Germany and Italy was "their fight".
I'm looking forward to seeing your reaction to visiting the Little Bighorn battlesite. It is easily my favorite battlefield I've ever visited. The place is haunting. I don't think there's another battlefield anywhere where the landscape essentially unchanged except for the few roads to give access. In addition, as most bodies weren't touched for months after the battle, it allowed later investigators to place markers for every person that fell. You see them all over the place. It gives a surreal sense of the fighting.
If you stand at the ridge where Benteen and Reno made their stand you see exactly why it was difficult to take that position after Custer fell -- 2d maps and pictures don't do it justice. I always imagined Custer's Last Stand to be some sort of hill but found was it a ridge that was relatively easy to flank on either side once you got to the top. It still was a pretty good climb to get there but I'm sure it wasn't hard for Native warriors. Custer didn't have enough men to defend the position but I don't blame Benteen or Reno. When he saw the size of the enemy Custer should have retreated to their position and waited for Gibbon/Terry but that wasn't his style.
I hope you do a video blog when you visit. I made a poor attempt at one about ten years ago and even though the video quality is bad, I still enjoy watching it from time to time.
I visited the Little Bighorn battlefield ten years ago. I found the little gravestone markers where the bodies fell poignant. The Native American memorial was also very moving. A large circle slightly below ground level with an opening, the “Spirit Gate” facing uphill to the 7th Cavalry Monument.
This guy has a bunch of channels that are great. Biographics and infographics are Amazing history channels about people and places. Definitely give it a look
Idk, I think he just puts out a bunch of poorly researched videos on like 30 different channels.
@@sickzappybeef9209 he’s a narrator used by the channels, he doesn’t actually own them
Infographics is kinda lazy and not that well researched tbh. I wouldn't recommend it
He's everywhere and everything, he's the sandman, ghoo-ghoo-ga-ghoo
Also because they can tend to simplify there stuff sometimes, it leaves more room for Chris to create a deeper conversation and observation about the topic and talk more about it.
Beardless Simon isn’t real. Beardless Simon can’t hurt you
Beardless Simon:
The other thing to note about Japan was that the army wanted a war against Russia, not the US, but in the end they went w/the Navy. It would be interesting to see what might have happened if they'd gone w/that.
The GeoHistory channel does a great job of showing the map of Columbus's discovery. He never discovered a landmass, just islands; he didn't come back to Europe reporting of a vast unexplored continent, just some kinda large islands.
I'm so mad that the first independent American country decided to call themselves Americans! How dare they do that!
The Nazis did NOT come to power through entirely free and fair elections. They were elected, yes, but they also employed thugs to intimidate voters and monitor polling stations.
I don't think that any history buff think that America won WW2 on its own, but I do think that the sentiment was prevalent in the US for a long time in the postwar era. We showed up and WW1 was won. We showed up when Britain was on the ropes and then we won WW2. I think Churchill himself marketed the war to Americans as them saving the world.
Its not that they called themselves Americans. Is that they didn't call themselves anything: United States of America doesn't mean anything. Mexico is called "United States of Mexico" and so on for other countries. It's a selfish, meaningless name, just like American culture and consciousness is selfish and meaningless.
the time in which we inhabit this world is so limited, and so unforgiving that It would be my honor to offer you a fresh start, and an opportunity to save your soul. the man who saved my life Is ruler over both land and sea. King over sky and Worm, and great beyond anything mankind has ever accomplished. today is a new day, let it be a new start for you with the Almighty Jesus Christ. God awaits you✝️
13:00 - I've always found the question of "What if Japan had just ignored the U.S. and gone after the Dutch East Indies oil?" particularly interesting. It would have put the U.S. in a bit of a predicament. Wanting to curb Japanese aggression, but having to justify going to war with a country on the other side of the world over a place many Americans couldn't point to on a map - especially with so much focus on what was going on in Europe.
"a place many Americans couldn't point to on a map" 99% of the World would have had difficulties as education was not so widespread then.
@@colinp2238 He didn't mean to point out how ignorant you guys are, your people do that quite well. He meant to say that people in general are not happy to fight a war, much less somewhere unknown and far away
@@orlando7436 I'm a Brit and we know our way around and for over a year will still fighting Hitler when Europe was overrun and the US hadn't got off their arses.
@@colinp2238 Well if the European powers had listened to the US during the WW1 peace talks by not turning them into punitive measures to ruin Germany WW2 would likely not have happened in the first place.
@@uni4rm And if the Europeans had respected the original inhabitants of the American continent and if and if blah blah.
"Greek geometers and philosophers had known that the earth, and heavens, were spherical for nearly a thousand years by St Augustine’s time(400)... The saint even warned Christians not to make themselves look foolish when talking with educated Greek and Roman pagans by insisting that the earth was flat."
Chapman, Allan. Stargazers (which is fascinating, and great at questioning common historical narratives)
He also has that to say about the Columbus /flat earth thing:
"The story of the brave Christopher Columbus just knowing, from a species of superior wisdom, that he would not sail over the edge of the earth, and going on to defy all odds, is a modern legend. It dates from early-nineteenth-century American patriotic histories, in particular from Washington Irving’s 1828 popular “biography” of Columbus, .....Though for a long time enshrined in the United States elementary education system, the idea of a flat earth would have made any half-educated person of 1490 - or indeed of AD 490 - roll over laughing."
The " " around Biography are his, not mine.
As for another topic i'd recommend Dee Brown, Bury my heart at wounded knee. Which should actually be covered by school education.
I graduated from high school in 1996 in a small midwestern town. I thought the US was responsible for winning WWI and WWII at that time. That was the impression that I got from high school history, just like the Civil War wasn't about slavery. There are plenty of people, especially in the midwest and rural areas in general that believe the US was chiefly responsible for winning both wars. My high school history teacher told me that the US allowed Russia to take Hitler's bunker as a gift to them after we wiped out most of the German military.
The US Army did give the taking of Berlin to the Red Army. Your teacher was correct about that part. That was Eisenhower's decision, and not all of his generals were happy about it.
@@awilson2385 that is certainly interesting. I should read more on WWII. It just always seemed like the historical subject that was covered more than any other, so I've probably subconsciously avoided it.
I always find it bizarre that people give the USSR credit for the bulk of the work in WWII ... without mentioning that it might not have happened (certainly not to the same extent) had they not helped START WWII.
Even without Soviet involvement in the whole Poland situation, World War 2 was inevitable at that point.
@@serathaevistille995 nothing is inevitable. USSR and Nazi Germany were likely to be enemies but it's likely France wouldn't have fallen and western front would have never closed
True. For two years Britain and its Commonwealth were fighting Germany alone while the Soviets and Germany not only were de facto allies having divided up Poland and having signed a non-aggression treaty, but the Russians were even selling critical metals, minerals, and oil to the Germans needed to carry on their war effort. One wonders how far that arrangement would have lasted had Hitler not decided to betray Stalin's trust and invade the Soviet Union in September of 1941 ... two months before Japan attacked Pearl Harbor -- and two years AFTER WWII started when Germany invaded Poland from the west ... and the Soviets from the east?
WW2 was chiefly the Nazis looking to wipe out the Jews and Slavs, so it rather speaks to the kind of people blaming the soviets (and presumably the jews) for "starting" ww2.
the soviets were prob scared of a 2 front war and the land was free gain and dont be on a high horse the brits owned a large portion of the world france aswedd usa owned alot aalmost all of africqa was under colonial rule they still have colonies the ussr di nothing to engache ww2 they made the the invation of poland go faster and made the germans invade earlier then if the soviets didnt sign it aand by then germany may have been even further ahead with military tech
I'm happy to recommend "How do German Schools teach about WW2" from this channel. As a German myself I can with all certainty say, what he says is in that video is a 100% true and maybe interesting to a history buff. :)
@kc korea It was never guilt, I would say, but rather a sense of responsibility (of all humankind really) that we do not repeat such a thing again. It is German history though, so that still makes us threat carefully about some stuff, because prejudices in the world are everywhere and some really only know Germany for it's darkest parts in history.
@kc korea why should someone not alive when a crime happened feel guilty about it?
@kc korea ok, I understand now.
@@Danisachanits a shame we have such difficulty doing the same in US
I recently discovered this channel and these videos are amazing! I’m in AP world history in school and I have my AP test coming up soon and I just wanted to say that these videos really add to my understanding of history. And it’s super interesting and entertaining at the same time! Thank you so much for the content :)
Thanks Lexi! Glad to have you here.
@@VloggingThroughHistory a top 10 armies or top 10 warriors or something like that would be cool so great videos out there from this channel or others
@@VloggingThroughHistory there’s a 100 greatest generals too video
Columbus didn't underestimate the size of the Earth, the size of Asia had been overestimated, thanks to Marco Polo's book, a book that isn't even reliable to his own words. It also includes a mythical land of Sipangu, a land full of gold, which is actually Japan, the believed cradle of life. With the misjudged size of Asia, Sipangu lined up with Cuba and became El Dorado
I have been to Custer's Last Stand site and there was absolutely no way that he, and his men, were going to survive. When he started the fight, he sealed his fate and the Indians were easily able to surround his troops without him knowing until it was too late.
#1: The US being chiefly responsible for defeating Germany is just something Americans think. Everyone else knows it wasn't as simple as that.
Hey man, justed wanted to thank you for all the effort you put in your RUclips channel. The videos really help me get trough the week, and whenever I’m in a dark space mentally your videos always bring a sense of comfort and for that I can’t thank you enough. I’m from the Netherlands and if you ever need help when you’re here just message me.
This isn't to say his video is bad; but it should be relabeled as "Top 10 Facts that aren't true but are believed by some people who don't actually have any real interest in history and have no clue".
I wouldn't even go so far as to say "10 Facts that aren't true" I would say "10 Facts that have some element of truth to them but require more context to understand fully".
Unfortunately I myself have met a few Americans who thought we won the war alone, and even worse I met a few who thought we fought both Germany and Russia. But that’s mostly due to the education system failing at its job. My own history class in high school just talked about three things in WW2, Pearl Harbor, the holocaust, and the bombs. I had to learn about the rest of the war by myself. I will say however even though Germany would’ve lost regardless, without America’s involvement, Stalin’s Soviet Union would’ve ruled over most of Europe without any real challenge and a new dark age would descend across the continent.
Wrong. How can you say Germany would've lost regardless when Nikita Khrushchev himself said the Soviet union "would have lost without US involvement"? He's referring to the American lend lease program that gave the USSR 13,000 battle tanks, 400,000 jeeps and trucks, 14,000 aircraft, loads of raw materials and equipment etc. The USA gave the soviets $11.3 billion ($180 billion in today's money) over the course of the war so to say Germany would've lost regardless is dumb and puts you in the category of people you were criticizing in your comment.
@@Ihateironyanddumbusernames I don't reccomend taking Khrushchevs word as the final one in this debate. Most of WW2 research shows, that USSR still comes up top in this conflict, thought with a lot more loses.
@@Theeight8b Zhukov said it also,I have plenty of quotes,try finding a russian car and driving one - even 80 yrs later they make shit
@@bigwoody4704 Zhukov said it, yes. But then again - it was what 9-10% of tanks and artillery guns?
You should take a look at numbers and statistic, not "what some public person" have said. Couse, you know, there this thing as "politics" so some people, who in position o power really did not have the luxury of saing what they really want to say.
And as someone, who has a BF with and old ass Moscvich, that still up and runnin (though it's, of cource, very obsolete car by today standarts) - i kinda disagree with you about "they make shit".
@@Theeight8b No on a whole scale they make crap or certainly did back thenThe t-34 had 2 xtra tranny's on board.The Russians actually liked the Sherman as it was dependable on the battle field
The truth is that it’s always more complicated, you can make an argument that the battle of the Atlantic was the ‘heavy lifting’ if the allies hadn’t won the tonnage war, contained the German surface fleet and held and subsequently defeated the u-boats the Nazis would probably have won in North Africa, made a second front impossible and would have freed them to concentrate on the Russians. You can say the same thing about the Battle of Britain, if Germany had reached air superiority and invaded Great Britain it would have been all over in the West. The perception that Americans won the war on their own is a direct consequence of Hollywood, it rewrites history and puts US actors and US characters where there weren’t any and the rest of the world knows better.
I've got to take exception to you claiming that American troops were on the ground in Europe in 1942. Although technically accurate, it was LATE in 42 when American ground troops arrived in the theatre, specifically for Operation Torch. That makes the American arrival in the European theatre almost exactly half way through the war. That, to my mind, makes them "Late"
On point #4, I was taught that the biggest impact of the Emancipation Proclamation, since it only applied to "States that were in open rebellion" was that it made the war about slavery, which kept the European powers out of the fight, since most of them had already abolished slavery (both the buying and possessing) at that point.
I love Simon Whistlers videos I hope you do more reactions to his it is very good stuff. Highly recommended.
Disappointed in how the guy presented that Hitler came to power using the democratic process. Really like your correction on that. It is really important to recognize that if the elite is undemocratic, it is difficult to sustain democracy. Von Papen and his cronies were in the core undemocratic. Specifically he had this personal vendetta which drove him rather to see Hitler have power than see him "lose" compared to his rival.
the misconception is that the Nazis seized power via the SA and their volunteer thugs. They seized the vote, yes but not the actual seat of power.
I am British and live in Utah and have traveled widely around the USA a place I love dearly, but I have met scores and scores of Americans that think America won ww2 virtually alone, however many of the younger generation do not really know anything about ww2 and really do not care it seems. Not many Americans I know have any idea about ww2 due the lack of Hollywood movies on the subject and latterly computer games. The same is true in the UK where most think Britian stood alone against Germany when i fact the list of participants in British uniform was extensive, Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa to name a few, not to mention that there were more soldiers from the Indian sub continent in the British army than there were British people.
I know this video is a year old. But my reasoning for US citizens being called Americans even though anyone North, South, and Central America are Americans but because America in part of the name of The United States of America that is why US citizens are called American.
The Viking thing never really sold me, the vikings never followed through from going to the New World and their "discovery" was lost until Columbus when permanent colonization began. Still think Columbus is the important historical figure, Vikings are just a footnote.
At least the Vikings didn't wipeout 90% of the Native people.
@@zepher664 Don't see what that has to do with anything. If their discovery didn't go anywhere it isn't much of a contribution to history except for trivia.
On the nose! People who say it wasn't Columbus who discovered America are ignoring what the word "discovered" means.
@@Utracia1 you say "discovery" as if we haven't been living here for the past 20,000 years, and only European people count.
@@zepher664 Discovered for Europeans. Who didn't know it existed.
Here is my main issue with the Top 10 list here. The host seems to know just enough about history to make these general statements dangerous or misleading. As you pointed out, history is complicated. Many of these issues can be discussed for hours at length. Some of the facts pointed out in the video were also wrong oland/or not the complete picture.
My main issue is Simon's lack of a beard. It's just... _wrong._
Hearing him say Great Britain is referred to as the 52nd state in America (diff video) was the day I was done with Simon
A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
He just reads the script other people write for him
@@crazymusicchick True. I know he's a channel host. My beef lies with his buddies who are researching all this and they don't do a fantastic job of it.
RE your comment about “events”
I think of events like Black Tuesday, the assassination of FF, or similar as “triggers”, or perhaps “detonators”.
I think it’s a legitimate answer to say “the explosion was caused by the person who pressed the button”, even if when pressed, obviously the questions like “who built the bomb?”, “who placed it?”, “why did they do it?” are obviously not that simple.
No, we like to make things neat and people remember particular events as start of something
Amelia Earhart was not making an around-the-world flight 'solo'. Her navigator, Peter Noonan, was with her.
And the Allies were on the European continent in 1943 when Sicily was attacked.
Columbus discovering America:
I am 75 years old. In my second grade class was two very large paintings common for the time. One was George Washington crossing the Delaware. The other was Leif Erikson landing in North America. Not a secret.
I’ve had students and grown adults tell me that if not for America, WWI and WWII would’ve been losses. With respect, I think you may underestimate the amount of people who believe this.
Completely agree. I would say a ton of people (maybe even majority) believe this because people that I know that are "educated" definitely believe that we came in and won those wars.
Oh yeah, I've heard or read many times some variation of "if it weren't for us you'd be speaking German now!"
24 minute mark. As a German immigrant to the USA I can with 110% certainty verify from personal experience that 9/10 Americans think they single handedly wrecked Germany in both world wars. Half of them don’t even know there was an Easter front
where do you live? as someone who’s lived in the US all my life, most people i know think that way about the pacific theater, however the coordination with the UK and soviet’s as they collapsed on germany is heavily taught in schools. not trying to discredit your experience but genuinely everyone i’ve ever met, even in the ultra-patriotic areas of texas which i now live, have i met an abundance of people who thought that
@@hesiiii I do hail restoration and follow hail around the country. I’ve been to almost every corner of the states and the ignorance on this subject is pretty universal throughout.
@@sevenstepsurvival interesting, from someone who’s lived here all my life, and traveled the country, it’s been the opposite. i find that the ignorant people are often the outspoken ones online. we can certainly agree to disagree
@@hesiiii there’s so many that think D-Day was the major breaking point of ww2 it is mind blowing
@@sevenstepsurvival i mean, that’s a lot different then thinking the US was the ONLY country resisting the germans. that’s the point i was responding to, as practically nobody i’ve ever met thought that
Man I forgot that Simon hasn’t always had that legendary beard.
My Dad was born the son of a sharecropper on a cotton farm in West Texas in July of 1928, and he made it very clear in raising me that, for their part of the world, The Great Depression had arrived and was ramping up.
Fun history fact, Eratosthenes was the first person to measure the circumference of earth back in ~200BCE by building a pillar in Alexandria and having someone walk from said pillar to a well in Syene which came out to be 5,000 stadia (500 miles/800 km) he then measured the angle of the sun's rays by the pole (dividing the length of the shadow by the height of the pole) for an angle of 7.12 degrees. Since the Greeks already knew the earth was round and regarded it as a circle of 360 degrees he divided 360 by 7.2 (so that 360 would divide evenly) he arrived at a circumference for the earth of 250.000 stades (approximately 24,854 miles/40,000 km). Which as we now know was pretty damn close. Being only ~75km off
This video, not yours the original, seems largely semantical around most of the points.
Could Japan have avoided war with the United States? Sure, but that would be ignoring a ton of things that had occurred or would have occurred if the Japanese went along with what he proposed. For example, if Japan had sought to conquer the Dutch holdings in East Asia -- much like you said -- America had already fully stated that in order to avoid war with the United States they would have to stop their wars of aggression and adding on another one against a European power that was so close to the American holdings in the Philippines. While I think that support for the war wouldn't have been nearly as high as it was after the Pearl Harbor attacks, war was mostly inevitable once the Japanese wars of expansion started. When it comes to his point about Japan just choosing to end their wars in China, first of all it would have been a political nightmare for Tojo Hideki and to some extent Emperor Hirohito to back off of the Chinese warlords who could have looked for any number of things at the diplomatic table. It would have been looked as a surrender to American political pressure without a shot being fired and in a nation defined by bushido at the time it would be largely impossible for these things to have occurred.
Was Columbus the first European to discover the Americas? No, but he was the first European in centuries to discover that territory and his re-discovery of the Western hemisphere is what led to the colonization of the territories by European powers. Lief Erikson is an interesting figure, but in terms of historical relevance Columbus is easily the vastly more important figure of the two especially since knowledge of the "Vinland" was largely considered legend at that point in time.
Did the United States win World War II on its own? Hell no, but American industry was the lifeblood of the allies and the Soviet Union. I'm not going to depreciate what the British, Russian, or even French Resistance did in order to destroy the Nazi regime but I hate it when Europeans depreciate all the good that the United States did in the world wars through our industrial capabilities.
This isn't even touching on the misleading information that you touched on about the Nazi party's rise to power. Overall, it seems like the video tried to use a lot of double speak to push their points without ever really considering the real world consequences of the things that they're talking around. Sure the Vikings were the first Europeans to set foot on American soil, but their long-lasting effect on the continent was little to none and overstating their importance heavily downplays the importance of Isabella I as well as Spanish and Portuguese history with the Americas. Things like this matter in a historical context, and ignoring or downplaying their significance severely hinders the quality of any discussion on history.
Japan wanted copper and oil from conquering the Philippines, which was an American territory at the time.
I don't know much about the exact situation, but I doubt that the Japanese felt in any way that it was the Americans business of meddling what they invade or not. Especially considering what the Perry and by extension the Americans did to Japan 100 years prior. Considering the way their society worked for centuries, it seems much more likely that the Japanese could never lose face as much against outsiders tat aren't from the chosen country. Which doesn't mean that they had to necessarily go to war, however they could also not just give in the U.S demands. Which didn't leave much leeway for solutions especially considering the probably blatant lack of widespread enough understanding of each others cultures on a level to predict with conviction how the other side would react. On both sides.
All 50 of Simon Whisler's channels are fantastic.
I think it depends on where you live in regards to hearing "Americans won the war" for WWII. Most of the people I know (friends and family, most likely people on the street) would say that it was because of us that Germany and Japan were defeated. I have actually heard the phrase "If it wasn't for us they (Europe) would be speaking German" more than once and from more than one person.
I am 58 years old. My dad was a pilot in WW2. What I leaned back then,through the early 70s about WW2 seems to have come from a 40's or 50's Hollywood movie script. No one talked about the Russians dieing by the millions or the fact that Great Britain actually won the first BIG battle that started the loosing for the bad guys. The Battle of Britain should be added to Alamein,Stalingrad and Midway as the big battles that turned the war. I still think there are plenty of people who don't know and don't care. Hell I have a couple of nieces who couldn't find our own state on a map (Michigan) without reading names or use any analog time device. Just having a really hard time understanding how someone can be so busted up emotionally that they aren't capable of LOVING HISTORY AND GEOGRAPHY. My heart breaks for these people.History and Geography for president!!!!!!!😍😍😍
I have to say the American centric education system did teach that the U.S. was responsible for ending WWI and WWII. I remember being taught that WWI was at a complete stalemate until the U.S. became involved. For WWII, it was taught that after D-Day the tide of the war changed. For WWII I later learned about Leningrad and Stalingrad and realized the Soviets were the ones who really won the European campaign. For WWI, I really did think the war was a complete stalemate until U.S. involvement.
14:16
Oversimplification here, but:
Wasn't the point of Japan needing the oil was for their war machine? If they stopped their aggression, they wouldn't have badly needed the oil. So, one feeds into the other.
Everyone else was doing it, and they wanted their place in the sun.
Because of racism in California, anti-immigrant laws were passed in the early 20th century that excluded the Japanese. This meant that the Japanese had nowhere to ship their expanding population and after the Smoot-Hawley tariffs, trade was no longer an option. So, the Japanese had to expand militarily or starve. Teddy Roosevelt said that he would prefer war with California to one with Japan.
Simon Whistler is one of the best script readers on RUclips. I'm fairly certain he reads a teleprompter as his knowledge of history is questionable at best.
He definitely does. He mentions on Brain Blaze how he doesn't remember half the stuff he does videos on
Tbh he read to many things he totally transported he has no clue of it affects me getting behind the good content he spreads. Somehow he broke kayfabe and i cant go back.:-D
Top 10 Sabaton songs 👀
Good to hear the clarifications of the simplistic 'Top Ten" assertions.
I have heard hundreds of military personnel make speeches and statements that the American effort won WWII. When discussing the nuances around specific combat efforts, these same people would often acknowledge the Soviets did most of the killing and dying. They would say stuff like England wouldn't have stayed undefeated without the USA, and that is what eventually led to overall victory, or if the Soviets had been allowed to keep fighting the Germans we would have eventually had to enter the war to fight them, etc.
None of what you said, though, means we won it by ourselves or were even the most important in winning. It just means victory wouldn’t have happened without the US. That is true. It also wouldn’t have happened without the Brits or the Soviets.
@@VloggingThroughHistory Agreed. You said you haven't heard anyone say this, and I had to listen to these pronouncements from so many "Military Leaders" while serving. There are plenty of people out there saying the US won WWII all by themselves, and evidence doesn't support that assumption.
"I don't want to say anything that they are going to say anyway" - Chris, that's the best thing about your videos!
Also Greeks pretty much had the diameter of the Earth right - there is a great video of Carl Sagan explaining this.
And generally my assumption would be that the biggest misconception people have are about medieval history or history of other parts of the world.
Hey. Long time viewer of your channel. Keep up the good work. You have very interesting content. I also gotta say. I am a Norwegian, and I think that most in my country at least, don't have the perception that Americans think that they alone won WW1 and WW2. I think those that do stems from the stereotype that Americans are arrogant. But I don't hold that view, and neither does anyone I know.
We do recognize the contribution that they made in both wars though. Especially WW2. There is an old European saying about WW2 that goes like this: "WW2 was won by British Intelligence, American Steel, and Soviet Blood." And I think that is very accurate actually. :)
More than half this stuff is just some British guy thinking Americans don’t know anything about our own history. Also you’re definitely my favorite history channel keep up the awesome work
It's because most of you don't every American I've met don't know basic things about their country
Like when they gained independence for example
@@chrisklitou7573hilarious that you even attempt to say that while clearly verbalizing that you’re not from there. your interactions are through outspoken people online, not the actual general populous. most people know these things, and more. stop the blatant ignorance. most americans don’t know when they got their independence now?? july 4th 1776 is quite literally the most famous date in american history, and the most popular holiday other than christmas
23:40 I grew up in the church, evangelical christian, young life, WWJD, yearly missionary trips...
Before I went to college, almost everyone I knew would say,
"America bailed out Britain and Russia we (basically) won WWII for them"
"Then those ungrateful commies went and turned against us!" 😂
Informal history class over lunch after Sunday school was wild times!
Fantastic video - both you and the one you are reviewing!!
Here’s some more on Lindbergh and the men who crossed the Atlantic before him. While Alcock and Brown were the first to fly nonstop across the Atlantic, the first aircraft to fly across the Atlantic was the Curtiss NC-4, a U.S. Navy flying boat with a crew of five led by Albert Cushing Read, the commander and navigator. It took them 19 days to hop from New York to Lisbon, Portugal, via Massachusetts, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, and the Azores. After reaching Lisbon, they then flew onto Plymouth, England via Spain.
Returning to Lindbergh, though, what also helped push him into fame was the fact that he was competing for a prize. The Orteig Prize, set up by French-American hotel owner Raymond Orteig in 1919, was a $25,000 prize for the first crew to fly nonstop from New York to Paris or vice versa. Five separate teams from America and France had competed unsuccessfully for the prize, with a total of six deaths resulting from the failures of these attempts. Many of these pilots had been WWI fighter pilots like aces René Fonck and Charles Nungesser or had gone on previous record-setting flights such as polar explorer Richard Byrd. Lindbergh, by comparison, was not widely known outside the circle of midwestern airmail pilots flying the Chicago-St. Louis route. Comparatively speaking, he was more of the ordinary man in this race (if the son of a congressman and a pilot of that time could be called ordinary).
The vikings also managed to get down to the Cape of Good Hope about 400 to 600 years before Diaz and De Gama. The vikings really went everywhere
First I've heard about it, so have you got any good sources?
@@artofthepossible7329 They were also the first Europeans on New Zealand!
I know I'm very late, but where is any evidence for this? I've never heard this claim before.
@@alias201I went looking for the new paper article about it that I read a couple years back. Sadly seems to have been scrubbed from the internet
No man, Columbus got here first, plus Antonio Meucci invented the telephone.
I learned a long time ago
Take any video involving Simon Whistler with a grain of salt. The accuracy of their “research” is spotty at best.
This goes for all of their channels
Perty much
Hilter wasn't even elected
Actually there are a number of historians who believe Germany had lost the war by the end of 1941.
I’ve just graduated from college and was in high school not too long ago. I’m fairly confident that must people know that the US had help in both World Wars especially in WW2 with the allies