Hi Diane! Simon Whistler is a legend! He has like 873 channels or something like that. And Poor Columbus. So Close, but So Far from the Land of Giant Pancakes Bacon, and Biscuits and Gravy. Have a great Wednesday!
@DianeJennings
2 жыл бұрын
Wow! He’s very talented as a presenter
@jaybirdjargon
2 жыл бұрын
Simon looks so young in this video....
@chicken2jail
2 жыл бұрын
@@jaybirdjargon Yes. It's weird to see him without his beard.
@pablodelsegundo9502
2 жыл бұрын
Simon needs an OnlyFans.
@lennychorn147
2 жыл бұрын
Simon Whistler is a fraud. He is a liar and huckster, that loves to give false, misleading, inaccurate facts and half truths. Especially when he is doing a video on the U.S..
@twenty3enigma
2 жыл бұрын
We weren't taught that Lindbergh was the first person to fly across the Atlantic -- we were taught (correctly) that he was the first to fly SOLO across the Atlantic. With nobody to take over the controls -- and no such thing as autopilot -- he couldn't take occasional breaks. Still impressive even now.
@HiroProtag
2 жыл бұрын
A lot of these set up the wrong premise to correct it without mentioning the correct premise.
@fcsuper
2 жыл бұрын
This is an old video by Simon that played very loose with the very facts that were purportedly being corrected.
@jkbrown5496
2 жыл бұрын
Lindbergh also hit the social media of the time, radio, just right for his story to go viral. Prior crossings just couldn’t break free of the newspaper ghetto.
@0816M3RC
2 жыл бұрын
@@jkbrown5496 He was also a Nazi lover.
@ernestestrada2461
2 жыл бұрын
And he was actually slightly off course because they did not have the instruments, radio navigation, or GPS in those early days.
@sparky6086
2 жыл бұрын
It was always made clear, that Lindbergh was the first to fly solo across the Atlantic, not the first.
@paulkenny5052
2 жыл бұрын
I was going to say that about No. 3, but you beat me to it. The fact is for the first SOLO flight. Unless one thought they were referring to the airplane's altitude, and saying he flew "so low" so he could see the landmarks (over the ocean).
@charliestevenson3500
2 жыл бұрын
Lindberg was credited with completing a solo flight from New York to France. The English pilots flew from the far east of Canada to Galway in a flight that was hundreds of miles shorter.
@mattwood6485
2 жыл бұрын
I think Europeans believe we think we won WW2 more than actually do. I've rarely heard Americans say such a thing. He was kind of wrong about Americans showing up "quite late" to the European war. We only really missed the first nine months of sitting around, the relatively quick Battle of France, and the first part of the North African campaign. The VAST majority of the fighting and death happened in the years of heavy American involvement. And I'm not sure how the clearing of North Africa and conquest of Italy could be referred to as a "rear guard" action- that doesnt make any sense. He is of course right in that the Soviets did most of the heavy lifting as far as ground combat in the war- but his characterization of American involvement is quite wrong.
@bigenglishmonkey
2 жыл бұрын
well your wrong since the war started in 1939 the first US troops to fight was in 1942, and for around a year of that time Britain was fighting alone between the fall of France and the invasion of Russia, before the lend lease act as well. the US was rear guard, since the African campaign was led by Britain along with the invasion of Sicily afterwards. D-day was the first operation devised by the US concerning Europe. but overall Britain had more men in Europe along with armies from all over the world making US troops in Europe quite the minority. although the pacific was the opposite way round with the US leading and everyone else supporting. so what he said wasn't really wrong.
@mattwood6485
2 жыл бұрын
@@bigenglishmonkey The first nine months of the war involved virtually no combat between Germany and the western powers. The "phony war" or "Sitzkrieg". The Battle of France only lasted six weeks. The British (and commonwealth troops) tried to fight in Greece but that campaign only lasted three weeks. Yes, the British (and it's empire) "stood alone" but really that amounted to holding open supply chains and carrying out a relatively small-scale campaign in North Africa. As far as combat in the western theater goes, the US really didn't miss much. The biggest, bloodiest, and most important battles happened in the last two years of the war. How could the US have lost more men than the UK if we just showed up at the end? There were far more American troops in Europe than British. According to wikipedia (and common sense, we have more people) 70% of the troops on the western front were American. This is in no way a slight against Britain and im not trying to make light of their contribution since they simply didn't have the population to support huge armies. I'm just saying that the implication that the US just showed up at the end and didn't do much is just flat-out wrong.
@bigenglishmonkey
2 жыл бұрын
@@mattwood6485 well Wikipedia is a good source for basics to start from but i look deeper on every topic afterwards and during D-day British and Canadian were the bulk force. and in Europe Britain itself had around 4,000,000 men while the US had 3,000,000. added to that when i said the US was in the minority i was referring to troops from Poland,France,Greece,Czechoslovakia, Norway,south Africa, India, and more. Greece was a failure yes but that was a surprise invasion and it didn't want British help for most of the battle, and when it did Britain had to divert troops who just took Liberia from Italy stretching too thin. how could Russia lose 10 9 times as many men as the UK and US combined, because of tactics. from German accounts we know Americans were less refined and experienced than Britain leading to heavier casualties at its entrance too the war. and you say america is bigger but thats not much help after all the US population in WW2 was around 150,000,000 while Britain and its empire was 500,000,000 more than all major players combined. the only problem britain had was breathing space to produce war materials which is the main reason it needed the US. point out if theres something you said that i failed to respond too.
@i.marchand4655
2 жыл бұрын
@@bigenglishmonkey What was Britain's contribution to the Pacific part of the war, again? Other than getting steamrolled, that is.
@mattwood6485
2 жыл бұрын
@@bigenglishmonkey The majority of my sources are in books and I don't generally make a habit of searching through them for sources for youtube comments but according to British historian Max Hastings in his book 'Armageddon' , the allied forces at the start of the invasion of Germany comprised of 73 divisions. Forty-nine of which were American, twelve were British, eight were French, three were Canadian, and one was Polish. Seven more American divisions arrived before the end of the war along with one British division and two Canadian divisions. The US Army fielded five armies, the British fielded one army, and the Canadians fielded one army. I just don't understand how this topic is even arguable. D-Day involved a pretty equal number of landing divisions (not that it particularly matters) between the British and Americans and then one Canadian division. Two American airborne divisions landed along with one British division. The majority of the naval forces were definitely British though. I wasn't denigrating the British for failing in Greece- my point was simply that it was a short and relatively small scale battle. It is true that the Americans were tactically unrefined in the beginning of the war- but again, those were small scale battles. Not nearly large enough to really effect the overall death toll. And honestly, how could anyone expect the Americans to conduct operations like a veteran army in its first battles against a hardened force? Dont forget, the British themselves had a long string of defeats to start the war. The Americans (according to those German generals as noted in Liddell-Hart's 'The German Generals Speak' as well as Antony Beevors history of WW2`) learned more quickly than the British did.As the war went on, the tactics of the British and American armies were very similar ( lots of air support and firepower). The British Empire did have a large population but they didn't contribute that many troops to the European campaign. India contributed the most and that was three divisions and a Gurkha Brigade in Italy. Most of the Indian and African forces that did enter combat were in Burma and North Africa. Most of them spent the war defending their individual colonies.
@JohnDingus_16
2 жыл бұрын
As a US citizen that graduated high school in 2018, I pretty much knew all of these. It really depends on when/where you were educated and if you really take the time to learn the history. From the first time I was taught about ww2 I knew the US didnt do everything by ourselves, but we did make large and very necessary contributions that ended the war faster. We also very much appreciate our overseas allies! Much love from the US
@jimobrien84
2 жыл бұрын
That’s interesting, I’m glad they teach more truthful stuff now. I graduated high school in 2002 and they taught us a lot of the wrong things. Especially the world war 2 thing
@mattheweudy2396
2 жыл бұрын
Glad to hear you can still escape the educational system educated.
@OjiOtaku
2 жыл бұрын
I graduated in 1983 and knew this stuff. but then I actually read the assignments (and more) in my history classes unlike most of my peers who were interested in partying
@AlbertoMartinez765
2 жыл бұрын
@@jimobrien84 Yeah Middle school and HS in the 80's taught us that the US Pretty much Saved Europe almost single handedly, it wasn't until College Courses that went more into detail that I learned it wasn't so One sided.
@TKDragon75
2 жыл бұрын
Yes and I still to this day though find myself in arguments with other history buffs when they say the Soviets could've solo'd the nazis. Which although not impossible, not likely. And the war would have dragged on an exceptionally longer time and the casualties would have been far greater than in our own timeline.
@darkwinter6028
2 жыл бұрын
American here. We most certainly DO give credit for the contributions and sacrifices of the other Allied nations. We also are well aware of the great folly of Hitler attacking the Soviet Union in winter - he *really* messed up there, big time. The Soviets knew how to live and operate there, and had the equipment to do so, because it was their home… the Nazis, just, well… didn’t. Without the contributions of the other Allies, it would have taken much longer to defeat the Nazis - to the point that nuclear weapons would have been used.
@joshgellis3292
Жыл бұрын
used MORE often actually. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were never the same. The Japanese were not going to stop. Between nuking those cities by the USA and Soviet Russia practically rushing at break neck speed- (something nobody remembers being more than half for why the Japanese gave up.) ...the Japanese have an ingrained sense against Communism. They are weirdly enough those, more comfortable with Socialized healthcare and other services.
@YoWhatGoesHere
Жыл бұрын
Yep. The thing is that many Europeans try to give all the credit to Russia and either through being uninformed, or even intentionally downplay just how vital the US was. Forgetting how iimpossible it would have been to defeat Germany even with the Russian manpower without US intervention. Let alone the horror that would have awaited Europe. The Russians had lots of men and nothing else. The US supplied the steel the machines and most of the goods to supply and support not only the Russian war efforts but more importantly the food, clothing and other resources to keep the Russian people alive. The UK was first as they were under heavy bombing and running out of basic supplies. In 1940 when Churchill told Roosevelt that the British could not pay for supplies the US gave through lend lease, if the resources weren't used during the war then they could give them back but if they were unable to be returned the resources they didn't have to pay for them. Then the US turned around and did the same thing for the rest of Europe. The US gave over $50 billion dollars worth of resources to over 30 countries through Lend-Lease. The only reason the EU even exists today is because of the systems that were put in place by the US so the European continent could help each other rebuild as the US slowly helped the different countries get their industrial centers up and running. Helping rebuild not only Europe and Russia but also Japan.
@Scallycowell
Жыл бұрын
I know more people who think America won than war than don’t, but I also live in the Deep South where people also think that the Civil War wasn’t fought over slavery.
@shawnkellogg4212
Жыл бұрын
Heck most Americans could not pass a basic civics test, math test, or science test....yes I am American... The WWI and WWII is mostly true... US did not do a lot in WWII for sure - Really a British/colonies & France victory.... WWII - Allies did a lot more heavy lifting, not to mention Russia only started winning when Germany over extended supply lines and US was supply Soviets by than.. Lets not forget the countries liberty by Russia where harmed more int he decades to follow by communist soviets than by dirtbag Nazis in retrospect... I think not mentioned British/Colonies did play significant role in the Pacific in my opinion. In all case the indigenous folks - aka rebels. Clearly humans have not learned much since WWII as we can still see today.... humans have bad traits about wanting to control other humans....
@jjjj-cy3vz
Жыл бұрын
@@shawnkellogg4212 LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL. we literally built 2/3rds of all the military equipment used by the allies in WW2. the air defense of britain? defended by planes made by americans. railways in the soviet union used to mobilize troops? supplied by the united states. without american contributions in literally bankrolling the entire war the soviet union would have fallen and so would have britain.
@teveler
2 жыл бұрын
Mr. Whistler has a bit of anti U.S in him. I have watched most of his channels and enjoyed them until he got the undertones of disliking the U.S. First and foremost the Allies won both WWI and WW2. What Mr. Whistler like to leave out is that though the Soviet Block bore the brunt of the casualties during WW2, the Soviets also made a deal with Nazi Germany to ignore the war and stay neutral. It was not until the Nazi's broke this treaty that the Soviet's got into the fight (WW2). Mr. Whistler also like to ignore the gigantic "lend/lease" packages that were brought to the Soviets' and France and Briton. I think the current state of Russia just recently paid off their debt to the U.S. for WW2(within the last 20 years). Again... I will not disrespect any veteran of the "Great Wars", it was the allies that won those wars, just some made it into the fight later. History tells us the Great Briton and France bore the brunt of the battles, until the Soviets and the U.S. got of off their providable A$$'s. Pardon my long post, but I believe the "Allies" need their true salute!
@Kedzie_
2 жыл бұрын
I watched the same video and it's full of mistakes, sadly. By no means am I chanting 'USA! USA! USA!', but he grossly underplays the importance of the USA in WW2. We sent hundreds of millions of dollars (at the time) worth of equipment, supplies, and other aid long before we got into the war officially. Simply put, non-Germany countries didn't have the industrial infrastructure for a prolonged war, and England - being an island - had FAR less access to natural resources than Germany. Had the US not entered the war officially, the Western front would have been a stalemate and on the Eastern, Russia would have kept hammering Germany into submission - or depleted their pool of conscripts they just threw into combat, often without any equipment at all.
@lawrenceallen8096
2 жыл бұрын
Yep. The war began 1 Sep 1939 and through 22 June 1941 (nearly 2 years) with the Soviet Union and NAZI Germany were allies, with plans to carve up Eastern Europe between them. And, throughout the entire war, the Soviet Union aided and abetted the Japanese Empire through a non-aggression pact. So the Axis was from Germany, to Italy, to the Soviet Union to the Empire of Japan. The menace that the USA and Britain faced together on 7 December, 1941 is this monstrous combined Tyranny, with the Soviet Union collapsing under the NAZI invasion of Russia. During the course of the war the United States gave the Soviet Union: 400,000 jeeps & trucks, 14,000 airplanes, 8,000 tractors, 13,000 tanks, 1.5 million blankets, 15 million pairs of army boots, 107,000 tons of cotton, 2.7 million tons of petrol products, 4.5 million tons of food. Yet while American & British boys were dying on ships & beaches across the Pacific, the Soviet Union had Japan's back. Japan didn't have to worry about their northern and western flanks: The Soviets would have them covered. So much so that one plane from the Doolittle Raid that emergency landed in the Soviet Union was impounded by the Soviets, and the US airmen imprisoned for a year. The USA and UK fought 3 enemies, on dozens of fronts, from the Arctic to the Sahara to the South Pacific. In the air, on the sea, below the sea, and on land. Again: mainly with American equipment from ships, to airplanes, etc. The Soviet Union fought only one enemy on in one dimension (land), and on one front: The Eastern front. The War with Japan was won with bloody military defeats, relentless destruction of Japanese cities from the air, and ultimately the threat of nuclear annihilation forced its surrender. The Soviet Union only declared war on Japan 2 days after Hiroshima, and having provided Japan a backstop during the entire war, was simply a jackal looking to rip off territory from America's kill. The Soviets rolled into a Germany that the American and other Allies had defeated on land, and made a smoldering wreck at the hand of American and British air forces. So to say "The USA didn't win WWII, they were just along for the ride. The Soviet Union Really won because they lost 11 million men killing 3 million Germans on the battlefield, but the USA lost only 400,000 each" is Soviet propaganda that still reverberates around the globe. The US and UK lost 800,000 men killing 3 million NAZI and Japanese soldiers. Isn't THAT winning: having he fewer people killed? In any event, the really is, the Soviets were the ENEMY OF THE ALLIES during the first 1/3 of the war, ALLIES with Japan for the entire war, and sucked on the battlefield. The USA and Britain won the war, period.
@lawrenceallen8096
Жыл бұрын
@@bwilson5401 If you don't mind I'll weigh in here. What the UK did in the face of the NAZI menace, the Soviet Union which was allied with Hitler for the first 1/3 of the war, and Japan a mortal enemy to the very end was nothing short of remarkable, incredible and truly "...if the British Empire and its Commonwealth last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'" No question. The sinking of the French Fleet at Mers-el-Kebir was what really triggered Lend-Lease: the attack demonstrating to Roosevelt that Britain would not become an unsinkable carrier for the NAZIS (i.e. fall like France and most of Europe), but would serve that role for the allies. From breaking the NAZI code (enigma) for the Americans, as the Americans did the Japanese code in the Pacific for the British: we were allies against evil. Those boys flying B-17s and Lancasters were brothers in arms. There is no question that the UK and USA needed each other and were stalwart allies who were 100% committed to victory. The Soviets? They were only in it for themselves, and used the opportunity to EXPAND their empire (added colonies), while colonialism was on its way out. Now, your statement "the USA build its wealth on British imports" is nonsense. The history of wealth creation buy the numbers: kzitem.info/news/bejne/p3qtqamwbYmGnGk
@Archadies
2 жыл бұрын
British intelligence and technology, American production and Russian blood. The US/UK lend lease program ensured that if a Russian fired a shot in anger, ate a ration or rode in a vehicle it was a good chance it was UK/US food, equipment and oil. None of the three could of won without the other two. The history of the lend lease program is an amazing story in itself. Some of the logistical hurdles overcome were amazing.
@terrancemockler5907
2 жыл бұрын
My step-dad participated in lend lease on US Navy destroyers who escorted ships to Vladivostock.
@stephenschiffman5940
2 жыл бұрын
Come on buddy, the benefits were definitely mutual, but "none could have won the other two" is taking things way too far. None could have one the war on their own WITHOUT HEAVY CASUALTIES, but either the USA or the USSR could have won a long, drawn out war.
@pablonh
2 жыл бұрын
@@stephenschiffman5940 The USSR could not have won without aid from the US and UK (including strategic bombing), and the US could not have won without the UK as a staging area (not to mention intelligence and technology).
@jacob4920
2 жыл бұрын
@@pablonh Here's a "devil's advocate" argument, for you! GERMANY is actually the reason that Germany lost the war, because Hitler thought that invading the Soviet Union, with Great Britain still as an active participant in the war, and without properly equipping his own army for the Soviet Winter, was a grand idea. If that's not #1 on the list of dumbest military ideas in history, it's certainly in the top ten.
@pablonh
2 жыл бұрын
@@jacob4920 Agreed of course. Declaring war on the US a little over five months later wasn't too smart, either.
@1BobsYourUncle
2 жыл бұрын
Without US logistics, Russian and Great Britain wouldn’t have been able to continue the war as long as they did. It’s a part of WWII that many overlook.
@DianeJennings
2 жыл бұрын
I don’t think many overlook that.
@confusingtheissueswithfact1626
2 жыл бұрын
With out the production capabilities of the United States, ALL of Europe and Asia would be speaking German or Japanese. The United States was shipping everything from compasses to attack aircraft across tje Atlantic and Pacific constantly and consistently.
@AlbertoMartinez765
2 жыл бұрын
No they don't its taught at elementary school levels that the US shipped tons of Food and supplies ( a lot of weapons) , its WHY German U Boats would go after US Ships supplying the Allies. But the part thats Wrong is some places teaching that the US WON WW! and 2 almost by itself and if we hadn't gone over there The Germans would have won. We did not and in fact came in at the end when most push back was already underway. We Pushed a Ball that was already rolling downhill Faster. Our Help ended the WAR Sooner and probably saved more lives in the end. That's from school in the 80's where they still taught that Columbus discovered America all by himself.
@HilaryBilaryClinton
2 жыл бұрын
@@DianeJennings well, while this guy was saying that the Soviets did most of the heavy lifting, he conveniently left out the fact that they got all of their weapons, vehicles, clothing, Etc from America through the Lend Lease program.
@sparky6086
2 жыл бұрын
Nowadays, Americans give credit to other countries for the victory in World War II. The belief, that America was primarily responsible for the victory, comes from the many Hollywood World War II movies. Since their audience during and after the war was primarily American, Hollywood producers made their movies America centric. Also, during the war for propaganda purposes, Hollywood movies made it seem, like the war would surely be lost, without direct American involvement, also contributing to the belief, that "America won the war". In the first few decades after the war, since it wasn't long enough in the past, to be studied in history classes, it wasn't really until the 1970's, that typical Americans realized, that it was more due to the Soviet Union's efforts & sacrifices, that the allies were able to win, although, they'd never given it serious thought anyway, as they were busy "living their lives". That said, Lend Lease, where America lent equipment, materials, & provided financial help to the Soviets & the UK, the Germans may have been victorious. The UK & USSR eventually paid the USA back, for the most part (I think, that President Reagan may have forgiven the last little bit, that the UK owed, as a nice gesture to his Cold War friend, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, but I can't remember exactly?). We did finish off the Japanese though.
@jonahprophet4483
2 жыл бұрын
Sad to say most of his explanations are extremely simplistic and you shouldn't take anything he said at face value because there's a lot more to be said about every single thing. He's guilty of so many omissions, that his "explanations" are actually just as misleading as the stories he's trying to dispel.
@thepayne7862
2 жыл бұрын
He has a bad habit of leaving things out.
@markgreene2865
2 жыл бұрын
He lies by omission so much, even Vulcans would be appalled.
@fr2ncm9
2 жыл бұрын
To be fair, This looks like one of Simon's earliest videos. He now has half a dozen KZitem channels and employs staff to research the topics.
@jonahprophet4483
2 жыл бұрын
@@fr2ncm9 I am in no way being unfair. I am being accurate and truthful, something he is not doing. He doesn't deserve any slack whatsoever based on the age of the video. He's keeping it out there when he could take it down. So he deserves all the blame.
@ThothWhoWrites
2 жыл бұрын
When I see him in a video, I generally just skip it. He's awful. I only stuck around for this one because it was Diane's channel.
@michaelhurley5660
2 жыл бұрын
I've watched many of Simon's videos and he is very good at what he does. But if you listen to him and have studied the facts he very much cherry picks his points. I can say definitively that he is somewhat anti American.
@markgreene2865
2 жыл бұрын
He is anti-everyone-but-Britian. kzitem.info/news/bejne/0Y2f3HuZgZadlGU
@EM-df6mo
Жыл бұрын
100% agree with you Michael Hurley.
@alwynemcintyre2184
Жыл бұрын
If Simon is anti American, how come he lives in America, think his wife is American, has American children. He has people researching for his channels, whom I'm pretty sure are American. If you don't like his videos, you don't have to watch them.
@michaelhurley5660
Жыл бұрын
@Alwyne McIntyre all you have to do is watch his videos and have ears and ability to break them down and it's blatantly obvious, except to you apparently. What are you his manager or maybe a family member 🤔
@alwynemcintyre2184
Жыл бұрын
@@michaelhurley5660 I'm guessing you're American
@JasonMoir
2 жыл бұрын
Lindbergh's flight was more impressive because he did it alone and non-stop, unlike the others. Imagine Editor Diane pillaging random settlements...scary.
@paulcochran1721
2 жыл бұрын
The best pillagers are always who you'd least suspect!
@ericpark2911
2 жыл бұрын
Also, he had a gas tank in front of him for more fuel. He couldn't see strait in front of him because there was no windshield to see out of. He had to look out the side windows and rely on his instruments.
@markkringle9144
2 жыл бұрын
It okay, she's only a merchant...until she mounts dragonhead on her ship, and becomes a Viking!
@aaronlewis2501
2 жыл бұрын
Charles Lindbergh was also a nazi sympathizer so the hell with him
@samrester6254
2 жыл бұрын
Yeah, he tends to concentrate on facts "Correcting" American history. Even when they are not believed to be true here, either. But hey. It's the internet. Get what you pay for.
@tomhalla426
2 жыл бұрын
The “USSR won the war” theme is fairly old, and rather deceptive. Russian logistics were really bad in 1941 and 1942, and without UK and US aid they may have collapsed. Much of the USSR’s transport in the war was US made, as was aviation fuel additives.
@tomhalla426
2 жыл бұрын
@@independenceltd. I do not think the USSR would have lost, but US aid shortened the war by several years. The Germans had really bad logistics as well, and had failed to win when the aid started making a difference.
@shure81
2 жыл бұрын
Germany would have wiped out Europe, Africa, and Asia without the USA. Germany had taken France, and all of Western Europe, their focus was on the East but then here come the Yanks and the Limey's to invade France and make Germany fight on two fronts, and the USA saved Europe. Then we saved Asia soon after that. What happened AFTER the war, with America's corruption is not the point lololol that's an entirely different story.
@michaelsommers2356
2 жыл бұрын
_"Russian logistics were really bad in 1941 and 1942, ..."_ And in 2022.
@tomhalla426
2 жыл бұрын
@@michaelsommers2356 What is that old saw? Amateurs study tactics, diletantes study strategy, and experts study logistics
@jamesnewcomer4939
2 жыл бұрын
It is important to remember that the Americans also gave the Soviets four and a half million tons of food...it's hard to win a war on empty stomachs!
@namenloss730
2 жыл бұрын
For the USA thing, yes of course a huge part of the fighting was done by other countries, but there is no victory for the allies without the huge equipment and logistics contribution of the USA. The USA proposed an earlier date for D day initially, which would have required a reduction in the deliveries of equipment to the soviets. The soviets refused because they could not afford that reduction. The victory of WW2 has many contributors. The brits and the soviets did the most fighting. The soviets suffered the most casualties (in part because of how they treated their troops and population as cannon fodder). And the americans provided a gigantic proportion of the equipment and resources, some estimates place that proportion between 50-80% of i remember correctly. (edit: victory in Europe. Victory in the Pacific theater was mostly american with a bit of Australian)
@redrick8900
Жыл бұрын
Huge part of the losing was done by other countries.
@janiyawest7023
2 жыл бұрын
Keep in mind that the Siviet Union was jointly responsible for starting WWII. When Hitler was attacking Poland from the west Stalin was attacking Poland from the east. Hitler and Stalin had a nonaggression pact that Hitler later broke by invading Russia. The US was already funding and supplying allied forces long before officially making a declaration of war, which it did the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. The US declared war on Japan and Italy and Germany then declared war on the US.
@daniellysohirka5079
2 жыл бұрын
So tell me again how the Soviet Union was responsible? When it was the Nazi's who invaded Russia in mid 1942, after the Battle of Britain failed. I'm strictly talking about your first sentence.
@jacobreisser8034
2 жыл бұрын
@@daniellysohirka5079 At the beginning of the war Germany invaded Poland from the west, the Soviet Union invaded from the east. Poland was carved into Nazi and Communist halves. So yes, Russia was just as responsible for starting World War Two as Nazi Germany.
@janiyawest7023
2 жыл бұрын
@@daniellysohirka5079 the invasion of Poland was in 1939. That started WWII. The Molotov - Ribbontrop pact between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany agreed to divide the countries that lay between them and maintain peaceful relations the Sovietz and Nazi's for ten years. The Nazi's later broke the treaty by invading the Soviet Union.
@peterrobertson1162
2 жыл бұрын
All this is true. However, the war would not have started if Hitler hadn't invaded Poland. The invasion was not a condition of the R-M pact. Hitler would have preferred the Russians had stayed put. The Soviets waited over 2 wks and the Poles mostly defeated before they strolled in.
@janiyawest7023
2 жыл бұрын
@@peterrobertson1162 And Hitler would not have invaded Poland without the reassurance of the pact with The Soviet Union. The Soviets gained the eastern section of Poland as well as the Baltic countries and in November 1939 they invaded Finland.
@SilvanaDil
2 жыл бұрын
In WWI, we tipped the balance when we joined in 1917. *But* we were *the* force in WWII. We supplied everybody (incl. the UK *and* the USSR). We fought *everywhere* -- Europe, Africa, Asia, the Atlantic, the Pacific (from way up in Alaska's Aleutian Islands down to the Northeast Australia coast).
@bigenglishmonkey
2 жыл бұрын
WW1 Germany surrendered in the end because of rising unrest since Germany couldn't feed its people due to Britain's blockade the only thing the US really did was make them panic and try one last desperate attempt to win before the US got there in full force, at the very most the US reduced the war by a month. WW2 most Americans forget reverse lend lease the UK gave 30% of supplies used by the US and USSR. plus Britain was fighting in all those theaters as well and for two and a half years before the US joined and by the end of the war both Britain and the US had around 15,000,000 troops each. on top of that Britain was THE power on the seas from the 1600s till after WW2, you really think your gonna fight a war on 2 oceans and act like Britain wasn't there. the US played a vital role in supplies and in the fight against japan but it wasn't THE FORCE in WW2, the US was even a minority force in every campaign except against japan.
@SilvanaDil
2 жыл бұрын
@@bigenglishmonkey - Somebody's butthurt about losing the USA in the late 1700s, losing the title of world's biggest economy to the USA by the late 1800s, losing the title of world's biggest superpower by the mid-1900s (and losing most of the empire)....
@bigenglishmonkey
2 жыл бұрын
@@SilvanaDil the US was a very small part of the empire and wasn't even a part of it at its peak. and the very fact you dont know Britain was the number 1 economy till after WW1 because it paid the US to build war materials says you definitely dont know much about history. and ill let the superpower comment go since Britain let the empire go, but i do find it fascinating that Americans can be so arrogant considering as a superpower not only have they never won a major war on their own but haven't won a major war since WW2. and yet they still talk down to countries that have won wars since WW2.
@SilvanaDil
2 жыл бұрын
@@bigenglishmonkey - nope. Check your facts. The USA's economy surpassed the UK's in the late 19th Century. The USA *has* won wars solo (e.g., Panama). The UK needed the USA's assistance ... for the Falklands! ROFLMAO
@bigenglishmonkey
2 жыл бұрын
@@SilvanaDil are you serious? every historian and economist knows Britain was number one before ww1 thats a large reason why it fought against Germany because it was suddenly number two, Britain had enough money to pay america to supply all other nations on the allied side. Britain didn't ask for help the US gave Britain supplies because it was the US who propped up the Argentine government in the first place. and lastly your calling panama a major war? more people die from guns in a single week in the US than did that conflict.
@HemlockRidge
2 жыл бұрын
WWI, yes it was the British and French who were stalemated for years until the Americans showed up. WWII, could Britain have beaten the Nazis and invaded France themselves? The Soviets were begging for a European invasion so they could get a breather to re-deploy. Remember, the US, with help from the Aussies, was carrying the load in the Pacific at the same time.
@Osok21
2 жыл бұрын
Great video :) I just wanted to mention - being a WWII-nerd - the oft-forgotten importance of supplies and supply chains during wartime: While the Soviet Union did indeed bear the brunt of Allied - and caused the majority of Axis - casualties in the European theater, it can't be understated how heavily they (and other allies) leaned on U.S war support via Lend-Lease. Nearly 93% of Soviet rail equipment was thanks to Lend-Lease, ~33% of their trucks, ~30% of their aircraft, ~58% of high-octane aviation fuel, ~53% of ordnance/munitions, ~4.5 million tons of food, etc. (The food aid in particular was extremely important since the Soviet Union had lost about 40% of farmland to the the Axis invasion, not to mention losing even more of their livestock, farm equipment, and farm labor.) Though the importance of the aid was publicly and officially downplayed by the Soviets both during the war and the decades after it, Khrushchev, Zhukov, and even Stalin himself all stated - in one venue or another - that the Soviet Union would have lost the war on the Eastern Front without U.S. Lend-Lease support. That said, the Allied victory in Europe was most definitely a team effort on everyone's part - everyone played a key role, no one Ally can lay claim to 'winning' the war on their own, and the war likely would have been lost in the absence of any one Ally's contributions and sacrifices. A big thanks to everyone who helped secure that victory - not just governments, but all the individuals - both civilian and military - who shouldered that burden and paid those costs. --Bonus Quotes-- Nikita Khrushchev, in his memoirs: "First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. ... When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so." Georgy Zhukov, in a confidential interview in 1963: "Today some say the Allies didn't really help us ... But listen, one cannot deny that the Americans shipped over to us material without which we could not have equipped our armies held in reserve or been able to continue the war." Joseph Stalin, indirectly stating the same at the 1943 Tehran Conference: "Without American machines the United Nations could never have won the war."
@monza1002000
2 жыл бұрын
You need to check your sources of information because you have some glaring errors. The UK/USA combined supplied Russia with 10,300 AFVs, they built 112,000 of their own. Try to get your info from non American sources and certainly NOT Wikipedia!
@Osok21
2 жыл бұрын
@@monza1002000 In fairness, I'm not sure it's a 'glaring error' (let alone invalidating any of the rest of my post) when I didn't even note the number of tanks or armored vehicles provided by Lend-Lease in my original post, because yeah, the Soviet Union produced ~90%+ of the tanks they used during WWII. That said, the amount of tanks and armored vehicles the Soviet Union self-produced doesn't change the fact that the they received huge amounts of civilian and military aid during WWII, nor the fact that key WWII Soviet leaders explicitly confirmed the vital importance of that aid. So in regards to "non-American sources" I will re-cite my quotes of Stalin, Khrushchev, and Zhukov.
@earlcollinsworth4914
Жыл бұрын
All the while, according to former U.S. Under-secretary of State Sumner Welles in his book, Why6 they behave like Russians, the food that they got from us went to canneries and was relabled to make the russian people think it was produced in Russia because they felt that admitting that their country couldn't feed itself would make the people think their country was weak!
@HilaryBilaryClinton
2 жыл бұрын
Columbus may not have been the first European to find the Smericas, but it was his voyage that led to the exploration of the Americas and their eventual colonization.. which is not the dirty word that everybody makes it out to be. Fun fact, every part of this planet that is currently occupied has been at one point or another conquered by one group from another on multiple occasions.. including Native Americans conquering land from one another before a single European ever set foot on the continents.
@peterjamesfoote3964
2 жыл бұрын
It’s funny watching someone from England (looking at you Simon) trying to put the US in its place 100 years after the fact. For example, while the US stayed out of WWII for some time, while it was doing so it ramped up its military production to unforeseen levels and through lend lease made a huge contribution to England’s food and defense efforts. It’s early participation in WWII was to sharpen the skills of its troops in important but less difficult areas of importance so that these troops would have a chance of surviving the European theater of war which worked. I won’t even bring up the USA’s post war assistance to Europe. By the way, can you guess which ethnic populations in the US were least interested in going to war for England? If you guessed descendants of (current and former )English colonies you’d be right. Yes, invading Russia was Hitler’s biggest blunder of the war and it resulted in the deaths of millions of Russian citizens. But without US involvement in England’s support before Pearl Harbor Day England might be speaking German right now.
@thepayne7862
2 жыл бұрын
Yup and the US never got paid back for all the money it spent to help rebuild Europe. Imagine if the U.S decided to have that money paid back with interest.
@johnmuse6626
2 жыл бұрын
This is 100 percent accurate. The United States fed allied Europe, armed, supplied and fed Russia and shortened the war massively by getting actively involved on the ground in Europe.
@EternalDamned
2 жыл бұрын
Even more vital to ending WWII was the US material support to Russia. With out the products sent through the lend lease act, Russia would have been over run. And of course the Commie wanna be's always pretend that they don't know Stalin planned the start of WWII with Hitler. If it wasn't for syphilis thankfully rotting his brain to mush, Hitler would have decimated all of Europe before he turned on Russia. In that case, no one could have stopped him.
@MichaelScheele
2 жыл бұрын
The US also aided the Soviet Union with food, supplies, vehicles, and weapons after Nazi Germany invaded the USSR. Without that aid, they would likely have been defeated by Germany. Simon also repeats the flawed view that the US was late to be involved in the World Wars. What was the US interest in WW I, other than ensuring its largest debtors (e.g., Britain and France) were able to pay back their debts? The sinking of the Lusitania and the Zimmerman Telegram drew us into war, but in hindsight, it's difficult to see how the German Empire would have seriously threatened the US itself. During WW II, why would the US have entered the war prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor?
@fanch1072
2 жыл бұрын
@@johnmuse6626 Yep and Russia does not like to admit that the US helped them with supplies and food.
@socket_error1000
2 жыл бұрын
Simon and his staff often miss quite wide on subjects in order to make his videos short and sweet. If America had remained neutral in WW2 and not contributed any support in material, equipment, or logistical support, much less the eventual combat contributions, Germany would have easily won WW2. Germany had already occupied all but the British Isles, including most of Europe and North Africa, and was deep into USSR territory and knocking on Moscow's door by the time the USA entered the war as a combatant. Both Britain and the USSR were heavily dependent on US support to feed their military machines (and their people). The USSR didn't have enough trucks to get troops or supplies to the front and the USA supplied thousands of these to them in addition to huge amounts of food and other resources. This allowed the USSR to rebound from the initial German assault and build enough tanks and arms to repel the German forces. Otherwise the Germans would have eventually driven the Russian forces all the way to Siberia and cut them off from their massive factories leaving them with eastern Siberia as their only retreat. Of course Britain would have lasted even less time if they did not have the supplies coming from the USA before and after the US entered the war. Great Britain would have been forced to sue for peace and accept NAZI rule just to avoid their population starving. It would have been a different world if the USA had remained on the sidelines as many Isolationists like Mr. Lindbergh himself, a vocal NAZI sympathizer before the US entered the war, did.
@markhamstra1083
2 жыл бұрын
“It was the British and the French who had been doing all of the fighting up until then.” Only if you ignore everything except the Western Front in WWI, much like how many Europeans have a tendency to forget about the entire Pacific War in WWII. While it is true that many Americans have an inflated opinion of the U.S. role in the World Wars, they are by no means the only ones who are susceptible to viewing history through nationalistic glasses.
@Blaqjaqshellaq
2 жыл бұрын
The Russians were fighting on the Eastern Front, and only quit the war in early 1918. (The Allied side also included smaller nations like Italy and Japan.)
@danebachmeier7867
2 жыл бұрын
👍
@bigenglishmonkey
2 жыл бұрын
not in Britain considering it was actually fighting on every front except the eastern front in WW1 and it was the exact same in WW2, so Britain cant avoid any other front cos we were there. hell even the Falkland islands got into a fight with German ships at one point.
@markhamstra1083
2 жыл бұрын
@@bigenglishmonkey You’re kind of missing the point of “nationalistic glasses”. It’s not about failing to give your own nation credit for wherever it was fighting, but about claiming a disproportionate share while slighting other combatant nations. You’re doing a pretty good job of proving my point.
@bigenglishmonkey
2 жыл бұрын
@@markhamstra1083 no i think you are, although its probably because i didnt make it clear. i was referring mainly to the part about ignoring everything other than the western front and the WW2 pacific front, as in unlike all other European countries Britain was fighting there too so we cant forget it. it was more the stereotypical sarcastic British wit more than anything. which i forget doesn't always translate through text.
@denniskelly3110
2 жыл бұрын
The end of his part on Charles Lindbergh, is actually what was taught. That he flew solo. And that he was the first to do so.
@erincarson8998
2 жыл бұрын
The consensus is that WW1 and WW2 would have reached stalemate without U.S. involvement. Also, the British Iles may have fallen, and the Soviet Union's lack of road worthy logistics may have hampered them greatly. Japan would not have been under as serious a threat from the USSR and may have retained more territory after the war. If they could ever overcome the oil shortage. (Bonus fact WW2 isn't over, Japan and the USSR/Russia still have land disputes from the war. The have never officially ended the conflict between them.) The U.S. lost its neutrality, its steel industry, and much more from the wars. The bases the U.S. keeps around the world were not built as an oppressive omnipresence. If the continent won't stop fighting and endangering the world, someone has to be the big brother and sort it out. Many Americans look down on Europeans because keeping their peace is a task we take with something of a grudge. Even if we smile and enjoy the food and music. Also, Ireland is not neutral. Since joining the EU relieved it of its long standing quasi-neutrality.
@mikenorton632
2 жыл бұрын
Ford did two things for the auto industry, 1, He introduced and improved the production line. 2, He paid his employees a high enough wage to be able to afford to buy his cars!
@Raynl1978
2 жыл бұрын
Since the beginning of both world wars America was instrumental in providing supplies and weapons. A major contribution that is often overlooked
@brianjordan2192
2 жыл бұрын
Lindberg was known for being the first person to fly solo across the Atlantic. The options asserted here for Japan were not as the video describes. Both the asserted "options" avoid geopolitical realities of the time. And imagine if one or more governments decided to lie to their people about some imminent world wide cataclysm that could only be solved by giving up freedom of travel and affordable energy, and economic stability while the governments gained more and more power and money. And imagine if the most powerful man in the world pushed a narrative that the worlds oceans were going to rise and drown everyone if they didn't follow the narrative, and then that powerful person used money no one can explain him having to buy two mansions on the beach. "It is easier to fool someone, than convince them that they have been fooled."
@dewayneweaver5782
2 жыл бұрын
Yes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make a Democrat think.
@brianjordan2192
2 жыл бұрын
@@dewayneweaver5782 "You can lead a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think." Democrats symbol is a donkey. So it's no surprise that most of them are asses.....
@SaltyCracker402
2 жыл бұрын
I feel he took a lot of facts, tweaked them to make them false and told us the truth as we understood it before he made them lies.
@Farmer_El
2 жыл бұрын
When Simon originally released the video, his claim was America came late to WWII and didn't qualify it all. Even now his facts are a bit fuzzy, because Britain also wasn't fighting in France having retreated a few years earlier. Closer to the truth, but still not fully accurate.
@anthonyhantonh
2 жыл бұрын
How important was America to the Allies during WWII? Ask Churchill. How important was Americans industrial might in defeating Hitler? Ask both Churchill and Stalin.
@dvdbluraydude3038
2 жыл бұрын
Custer graduated “last” from his class at West Point the same year the American Civil War began. He was very eccentric character during the Civil War and after.
@johnhrussell4885
2 жыл бұрын
He very nearly got kicked out of West Point because he showed up with his pack of hounds and let them sleep on his bunk. He was a pretty good officer until he totally blew it at Little Big Horn.
@JKrantz846
2 жыл бұрын
You obviously have to give credit to the Soviet Union for much of the victory in WWII, but the source of victory in the war was US Industry. The US supplied all the allies including Russia.
@MRCATL3
2 жыл бұрын
There's a reason that America was able to produce all of said materials. We weren't bombed into rubble. Also, Ford, GM and other American companies were supplying the Germans before hand. As were prominent German companies that we never stopped supplying...Mercedes Benz. Volkswagen and countless others. Fanta was a Coca Cola product rebranded for the Nazi's. Cigarettes? Yeah. Merk is a medical conglomerate that invented MDMA for the German troops to be high for committing the atrocities. I love my country but I'm not ignorant. God bless us all, not just fake revisionists.
@douglasbuchanan4203
2 жыл бұрын
As an American I can see why some people believe we all think that those were true but in reality most of us are not that ignorant. #8 I totally agree with you Diane and part of it will start in the USA as we are so divided politically.
@TKDragon75
2 жыл бұрын
The purpose of the emancipation proclamation wasn't to free the slaves in the moment, it was to make the war about something else, to change the idea of it for something more righteous. This kept the European countries from intervening on the side of the south. Also if you ever hear southerners saying that the south was about to free them as well, that's a load of malarky.
@robinmills8675
2 жыл бұрын
My mother was born in 1929 and she once told me that SHE caused the Great Depression. My whole family has a silly sense of humor.
@mattheweudy2396
2 жыл бұрын
My grandfather was born the same year & Ive long suspected HIM as the cause, but you’ve laid my fears to rest, thank you.
@asterix7842
2 жыл бұрын
There were many causes. I doubt she played more than a minor role.
@jmar3193
2 жыл бұрын
Given her age at the time, I suppose that was the best she could do.
@captglenn100
2 жыл бұрын
Although American troops had an impact on WWII, it was mostly due to the equipment the Americans provided to the allies that made the difference. You might argue whether the Germans would have been defeated without the support of the United States, but it is obvious that the war ended sooner with this support. The United States provided the USSR with: 400,000 jeeps and trucks 14,000 airplanes 8,000 tractors 13,000 tanks In addition: More than 1.5 million blankets 15 million pairs of army boots 107,000 tons of cotton 2.7 million tons of petroleum products (to fuel airplanes, trucks, and tanks) 4.5 million tons of food Americans also sent guns, ammunition, explosives, copper, steel, aluminum, medicine, field radios, radar tools, books and other items. From 1941 through 1945, the U.S. sent $180 billion dollars, in goods and services to the Soviets.
@StephenLPhotos
2 жыл бұрын
American here! I had the absolute pleasure of visiting Ireland for the first time in 2019, and visited the site where Alcock & Brown landed near Galway. I don't think I'd ever heard of them before that, and I thoroughly enjoyed learning of their achievement.
@robertjones705
2 жыл бұрын
He’s playing semantics the the group of soldiers directly under Custers command and miles from reinforcements were wiped out. Custer did not lead the whole company into battle.
@newsguy5241
Ай бұрын
Custer was kind of an idiot. Going after glory above common sense.
@pridemosh2140
2 жыл бұрын
When it comes to WW2, I think it's important to note that inept German strategy was more of a cause of lost battles on the Eastern Front than this weird notion that the Soviet army was a big unstoppable force. It wasn't. The Russians were battered often early on before German supply lines were overextended and they prematurely split their forces assuming Russia was closer to collapse than they were. The winter also played a huge role in stopping the German advance. I'm always confused by the inaccuracies of suggesting Russia was, as this guy said, a juggernaut. They fought well enough, especially when forced to retreat to their own country, but Germany fighting a war on two fronts aided their ability to regroup and counter.
@garyballard179
2 жыл бұрын
The Russians had millions of people to throw into battle, and they _did_ throw them in.
@vintagethrifter2114
2 жыл бұрын
By inept you mean Hitler. Hitler and Stalin both feed millions of their soldiers to the meat grinder by ignoring their generals.
@michaelodonnell824
2 жыл бұрын
Re Hitler When he was first appointed Chancellor, not only were the NAZIs not the largest Party, but also the Nazi vote was falling. He was appointed Chancellor by a combination of other Conservative parties, some of whom were bigger but they couldn't agree on who should be Chancellor.
@gregwilliams386
2 жыл бұрын
The US gave Russia in WW2 400,000 jeeps & trucks 14,000 airplanes 8,000 tractors 13,000 tanks 1.5 million blankets 15 million pairs of army boots 107,000 tons of cotton 2.7 million tons of petrol products 4.5 million tons of food And we gave Britain a lot also.
@DonP_is_lostagain
2 жыл бұрын
And interesting fact about the battlefield is that afterwards, once the US Army arrived in force, they found the bodies of Custer and most of his men scattered all around, many in a pattern indicating they were running away. So they gathered them together to make it look like they all died in a group. As for the Soviet Union doing the heavy lifting, that lifting was heavily enabled by both Britain and the US. In lend lease actions, Britain provided Spitfires, and the US provided trucks, aircraft engines, and other war supplies the Soviets were incapable of manufacturing.
@joeyoungberg6265
2 жыл бұрын
Lyndberg was not the "first to cross the Atlantic", he was the first pilot to do so SOLO. The 30 hour trip was very difficult and one of the fastest times across the ATL, which made him famous.
@lennychorn147
2 жыл бұрын
America won the pacific war, during WW II. Most Americans, at least from my Generation knows that the U.S. was apart of the allied forces in Europe. Our troops did liberate Italy, as well as playing a major roll in both Africa and the liberation of France. The U.S. also played a huge navel role, including trying to keep the supply line from the U.S. & Canada, open. The U.S. was also heavily involved in technical and intelligence, throughout the 2nd world War. Limburg, was not credited for make the first trans Atlantic plane flight. He holds the distinction of making the first solo trans Atlantic flight. Huge difference. Columbus only became honored with a holiday, sometime in the 1900's, to appease the huge Italian community. That somehow became him discovering the Americas. By at least the 70's, we were learning about the Vikings that traveled well inland into what is now the U.S., with primary credit being given to Leif Ericsson. This Simon character, has a longstanding reputation of giving inaccurate, misleading and half truths, especially when discussing the U.S.. If you check his history of uploads, you'll find a lot of videos by him, that are obviously intended to make the U.S. look like a backwards nation of idiots.
@gnome53
2 жыл бұрын
I was taught correctly (in the US) for most of these. However: #10 - Simon misspoke when he said "East Indies". Columbus of course was in the West Indies. #9 - The Earth can't be flat. If it were, cats would have pushed everything off the edge by now. 😉 #3 - Lindbergh was later one of the primary opponents of the US entering WW II, but when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, he volunteered to assist the war effort. #1 - True overall. But regarding "Americans...fought largely rear-guard actions in North Africa and Italy", I would agree for North Africa, but disagree for Italy. No curse was needed - the few houseplants that I had died slow deaths already. 😞 Thank you for the singing outro. Today is the unofficial US holiday National I LOVE My Feet Day. I hope you can give yours a treat (pedicure). Happy Wednesday!
@Irish381
2 жыл бұрын
#10 the Caribbean, and most of Central America, also don’t forget St. Brendan the Irish monk who sailed to Greenland and Labrador in a leather skin boat about 800AD c #3 Lindbergh was crossing the Atlantic solo! No chase plane or safety net, it was done flying less than 30 feet(10M) from the sea his only contact was a radio to signal approach . Morse code not voice radio. #1 D-Day was American French Canadian and British with some Irish volunteers As for North Africa Liberia and other latex rubber exporters were under U.S. ARMY protection as well as most west African oil exporters. As for WW1 most of the American people were being primed and ready by volunteers who were not fit for war in the trenches. If the US had entered in say 1915 the casualty rate and loss of manpower and supplies would have been catastrophic. Entering in mid 1917 April 17th . The over one million surge of troops and supplies was enough to overwhelm the German and Turkish stalemate with Britain and France
@markhamstra1083
2 жыл бұрын
The U.S. effort in North Africa was not any kind of rear guard action. If the U.S. were in the rear of the British in North Africa, then they would have been all the way across the continent and occupying positions in Egypt instead of moving eastward from the Torch landings. The U.S. were on a second front in North Africa, which was by no means a secondary front by the close of that theater of conflict.
@erikkunkle9574
2 жыл бұрын
The pilots flying out of North Africa to bomb Germany were not fighting rear guard actions. Pilots and sailors playing havoc on the German suply line were not rear guard.
@jackhayes7282
2 жыл бұрын
@@erikkunkle9574 the infamous raid on Ploesti known as Bloody Sunday was flown from bases in North Africa
@erikkunkle9574
2 жыл бұрын
@@jackhayes7282 yea. And several others too. There were also long raids from Europe that landed in North Africa. None of which are rear guard actions. The USAF lost more,men over Europe than the Marines lost in all of the Pacific.
@user-ko3vg7fc7o
2 жыл бұрын
I'm American, and I have never heard anyone say we were "chiefly responsible" for winning ww2. Everyone knows we came in late and Britain and the Soviets were pounding germany for years before we got in it. Idunno where this guy got his information about that.
@pablonh
2 жыл бұрын
> the Soviets were pounding germany [sic] for years before we got in it Uh - no. We "got in it" (i.e., declared war) in December 1941. Six months earlier, the Soviets and Germany had been allies, having just dismembered much of eastern Europe. Of course, we'd been supplying the British long before that. At almost exactly the same time as Pearl Harbor, Germany made its closest approach to Moscow. US troops were engaged in North Africa by late 1942 - still not "years" after Germany invaded the USSR.
@user-ko3vg7fc7o
2 жыл бұрын
@@pablonh true, mea culpa
@jerryhosford4557
2 жыл бұрын
We were not taught that the U.S. won the wars alone, it was the combined forces of the Allies that defeated Germany. I like watching Simon's videos.
@marcosoconner664
2 жыл бұрын
We still have a scary huge amount of people who legit believe that the earth is flat right now today 😲
@an_anishinaabe_son
2 жыл бұрын
The U.S. supported the Chinese fight against Japan since 1933. The U.S. sent warplanes and other things to China. Additionally, the American Volunteer Group (aka.."The Flying Tigers") taught Chinese pilots how to dogfight, etc, and the AVG (American Volunteer Group) fought too. On July 4, 1940, the U.S. Army Air Corps took over AVG operations and admitted to the Japanese that the U.S. has been helping the Chinese in the war against Japan since at least 1933. No surprise, the Nipponese ("Japanese") attacked Pearl Harbor on December 7th of the next year (December 7, 1941)
@dphilson
4 ай бұрын
Exactly! Perfect! Loved Chennault and the Flying Tigers, giants amongst men.
@an_anishinaabe_son
4 ай бұрын
@@dphilson , As I understand it, both Gen. Chennault and Audie Murphy are from Commerce, Texas.
@an_anishinaabe_son
4 ай бұрын
@dphilson I agree! They're giants among men!
@americasdream1265
2 жыл бұрын
So, the dude doing the talking says the US really didn't do much in WW 2 in Europe. Perhaps he should go on a trip to France, Italy, Germany and other countries in Europe and look at all the headstones of all the soldiers and Sailors that died in Europe. Yes, the US was involved in another war that started when Japan attacked the United States at Pearl Harbor. That war was fought by the Aussies, some Canadians and the United States. Sorry but this Britt is a very ungrateful man..
@LieutenantBonk
2 жыл бұрын
When I was a kid I believed the Columbus stuff, and learned about the multi-factor causes of the Great Depression in late teens. A belief that I held until very recently was that a N@zi situation was just not a serious possibility in modern society. 😞
@jeffreiland7463
2 жыл бұрын
@Bonk --- It may be more than a serious possibility. We are in the process of hiring 87,000 military mercenaries disguised as IRS agents.
@garyballard179
2 жыл бұрын
@@C.Church I remember Leif Erikson being in history textbooks as far back as the early '90s. Possibly in the '80s, even, but it wasn't until middle school that I recall it being brought up in class.
@garyballard179
2 жыл бұрын
@@C.Church I'm from Texas, and my school district has a middle school _and_ a Jr High.
@Farmer_El
2 жыл бұрын
Isn't it a shame when you have to substitute special characters to words to keep from being censored?
@LieutenantBonk
2 жыл бұрын
@@Farmer_El In this case it's my own fault. Early days of the Ukrainian invasion I was arguing with Russian trolls and heatedly called one a commie somethingorother. My comments were shadow banned for a long time. I'm on my best behavior now. 😇Regards.
@scottfleming2190
2 жыл бұрын
Thanks Diane Really like great debates about history! This really got me chatting with some amazing great American patriots. History is important that we do not make the same mistakes. Your videos get people taking and help people understand things from different perspectives. This was one of the good ones! I have learned a lot from your videos over the years! Keep them coming.
@jimayres6363
2 жыл бұрын
I graduated from high school in 1960; some of my teachers were WW2 veterans. We were NEVER taught that the USA won WW2 alone, or was the largest force in the Allied victory in Europe. We were taught that the USA was the largest producer of allied war material, and that the US was the largest military (but not the only one) in the war against Japan.
@joshuapine9883
2 жыл бұрын
the US definitely did win ww2. sorry.
@DianeJennings
2 жыл бұрын
Watch the video
@1BobsYourUncle
2 жыл бұрын
@@DianeJennings The video misses quite a few facts. Without US logistics russia and G Britain would have fallen. Without the US Europe would be ruled by Germany now.
@user-lf7nf3kl7t
2 жыл бұрын
With the invention of the atom bomb and its use, along with the US being able to sustain a prolonged war with its industrial rise and not having to worry about the homeland I would agree. The USA surely defeated Japan and closed the book on the war, and massively helped in parts of Europe, Africa, and Asia but the Soviets really delivered the finishing blow to Germany. We should also not forget the Soviets were on Hitler's side until he backstabbed Stalin. The enemy of my enemy is my friend situation, followed by 70 years of a "cold war" whether they want to call it that anymore or not. The video is somewhat oversimplified as the Soviets only really defended their homeland and pushed Germany at the end, but did not do as much as the US as far as liberation across the continent or on any other front.
@joshuapine9883
2 жыл бұрын
ill argue the point of world war 2. the soviets really didnt do much damage to the german war machine. most of the causalties by the soviets was from three main battles. the US took North Africa, Italy, and western europe.
@r.bruceorrell6903
2 жыл бұрын
THe US was on the winning side, thanks for coming to the part late in both wars... Most US War movies would make you think that ONLY the US was involved.
@razzberrylogic
2 жыл бұрын
Diane reacts to some historical facts that just aren’t true And she provides insightful comments, cause that’s what she do Then she added one fact, with which my mind she blew She confirmed that there really is no Editor Chew!
@Wheels84ss
2 жыл бұрын
Only two things I would argue, the Linberg point has been hammered to death in the comments, he was the first solo not the first ever, it was always taught that way. The second was the one about America not playing a big part in defeating the Germans especially in WW2. Yes we were taught and all knew that the Russians on the eastern front carried the load of soldiers and combat, but both Russia and Europe were kept alive by the lend lease and supply runs America kept rolling since early 1941. Part of the reason Russia could keep the Germans at bay was the American deuce and a half because they could move their field guns quickly to combat German armor and not get over run. Britain only stayed fed because of the merchant marine and US supply ships. It's actually one of the reasons most of America's economy is based on military equipment today. Agreements made after WW2 because no one in Europe wanted their neighbors building up weapons like that again, so that was the economic share given to America rather then making payments back on lend lease
@Mike-lh4wn
2 жыл бұрын
Umm...the US had a policy of non-intervention. It wasn't our war. And before giving too much credit to Russia, remember that they were co-conspirators with Hitler until he turned on them. Adolph couldn't have done half the damage he did without their consent and assistance.
@PlasticMacele
2 жыл бұрын
From a combat perspective it's true that Russia bore the brunt of it in Europe, by far. That being said from a purely economic and logistical perspective the thing a lot of Europeans and Russians forget about is the Marshal Plan which if adjusted for inflation would come to about $162 billion to aid in rebuilding and recovery. That is greater than the entire GDP of a great many countries. And that was just one of many economic stimulus actions undertaken by the US. The US practically bank rolled Germany's reconstruction, and now they sneer at the Americans as uneducated and uncultured cowboys, just like they did after WW1. And people wonder why Americans were/are so hesitant to come running when tensions build up in Europe.
@PlasticMacele
2 жыл бұрын
@@forevertoons9022 Sadly, yes. And I agree that the Treaty of Versailles was a giant misstep after WW1. Luckily they didn't make the same mistake after WW2 with Germany and Japan.
@marcos3497
2 жыл бұрын
For #1, we were the ones who armed the Soviets. I'd say it depends on how "patriotic"/nationalist someone is depends on if they believe it.
@JerryCollins101
2 жыл бұрын
Or educated, it's called history.
@derrickmeade4891
Жыл бұрын
@Buck Rothschild ooph you need to check out the Sherman, and the history of angled armor, the concept of angled armor is better has been around since castles were still being built, and t 34s were kinda crap cause of cutting corners during production
@joeldykman7591
2 жыл бұрын
Most scholars during the Age of Disconvery were in agreement that not only the world was round, but there was likely another continent. The thing is that they simply didnt know WHERE it was.
@Chris-zr3to
2 жыл бұрын
Europeans say this all the time and I don’t understand “ the US didn’t win WW2 by yourself “ yeah we know that. I think it’s some weird stereotype of Americans that Europeans have.
@jeremygilbert7989
2 жыл бұрын
If you wanna learn more about the US's involvement in WWII and the value therein I recommend Extra History's "The Arsenal of Democracy" series. It very well explains the extent of the US's invaluable economic involvement in WWII well before American boots hit the ground at Normandy. It's entirely possible that the battle of Britain would have ended in failure were it not for US policies like Cash and Carry and Lend Lease. You should check it out, it was quite enlightening and I'm an American, I wasn't taught any of this lol.
@mattheweudy2396
2 жыл бұрын
I’ve been told my great grandfather was over in the UK pre US involvement commanding a squadron of pilots.
@pablonh
2 жыл бұрын
American boots hit the ground long before Normandy.
@MrSinghKhanna
2 жыл бұрын
I was never taught any of those things. His 'facts' seem to be very carefully worded to skew to the point he's trying to make.
@Sunset553
2 жыл бұрын
Lindberg (the pilot)’s son was kidnapped. It was a huge case covered in the news. I mostly remember him from that case. This might have been the case that started the use of the FBI as an agency to pursue kidnappers, because it’s a federal agency and kidnappers can easily cross into other states. At the time, though, it was Charles Lindberg’s fame that influenced the government to find a way to bring his son home. Again, I’m not 100% on which case this detail happened.
@budabk
2 жыл бұрын
The police officer in charge of the investigation was Lt. Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf Sr, father of Gen. Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf Jr. commander of coalition forces in the First Gulf War.
@lawrenceallen8096
2 жыл бұрын
The war began 1 Sep 1939 and through 22 June 1941 (nearly 2 years) with the Soviet Union and NAZI Germany were allies, with plans to carve up Eastern Europe between them. And, throughout the entire war, the Soviet Union aided and abetted the Japanese Empire through a non-aggression pact. So the Axis was from Germany, to Italy, to the Soviet Union to the Empire of Japan. The menace that the USA and Britain faced together on 7 December, 1941 is this monstrous combined Tyranny, with the Soviet Union collapsing under the NAZI invasion of Russia. During the course of the war the United States gave the Soviet Union: 400,000 jeeps & trucks, 14,000 airplanes, 8,000 tractors, 13,000 tanks, 1.5 million blankets, 15 million pairs of army boots, 107,000 tons of cotton, 2.7 million tons of petrol products, 4.5 million tons of food. Yet while American & British boys were dying on ships & beaches across the Pacific, the Soviet Union had Japan's back. Japan didn't have to worry about their northern and western flanks: The Soviets would have them covered. So much so that one plane from the Doolittle Raid that emergency landed in the Soviet Union was impounded by the Soviets, and the US airmen imprisoned for a year. The USA and UK fought 3 enemies, on dozens of fronts, from the Arctic to the Sahara to the South Pacific. In the air, on the sea, below the sea, and on land. Again: mainly with American equipment from ships, to airplanes, etc. The Soviet Union fought only one enemy on in one dimension (land), and on one front: The Eastern front. The War with Japan was won with bloody military defeats, relentless destruction of Japanese cities from the air, and ultimately the threat of nuclear annihilation forced its surrender. The Soviet Union only declared war on Japan 2 days after Hiroshima, and having provided Japan a backstop during the entire war, was simply a jackal looking to rip off territory from America's kill. The Soviets rolled into a Germany that the American and other Allies had defeated on land, and made a smoldering wreck at the hand of American and British air forces. So to say "The USA didn't win WWII, they were just along for the ride. The Soviet Union Really won because they lost 11 million men killing 3 million Germans on the battlefield, but the USA lost only 400,000 each" is Soviet propaganda that still reverberates around the globe. The US and UK lost 800,000 men killing 3 million NAZI and Japanese soldiers. Isn't THAT winning: having he fewer people killed? In any event, the really is, the Soviets were the ENEMY OF THE ALLIES during the first 1/3 of the war, ALLIES with Japan for the entire war, and sucked on the battlefield. The USA and Britain won the war, period.
@m.r.6264
2 жыл бұрын
It's so weird seeing Simon Whistler without a beard Also, the nazi thing is hitting pretty close to home at the moment with our current situation
@thomast8539
2 жыл бұрын
When you make a statement like your second sentence, you need to be much more specific. People are probably thinking that you are supporting their position, when you mean quite the opposite.
@trudat1498
2 жыл бұрын
I watch several of Simon’s channels. He’s very enjoyable and though I don’t agree with all of his personal opinions, I enjoy him. Yes, you are able to enjoy a person you don’t agree with 100% of the time folks. (I know, SHOCKING)
@DianeJennings
2 жыл бұрын
Omg! On the internet too! Who’da thunk right?! 😂
@mattheweudy2396
2 жыл бұрын
Differences makes conversation so much more enjoyable
@pablonh
2 жыл бұрын
I don't mind his opinions. But he's pretty light on facts sometimes.
@jacob4920
2 жыл бұрын
The most shocking thing about Simon, in this video, is the fact that his beard and mustache are gone! At no point in the last five years of watching his videos did I ever even imagine Simon Whistler without his award-winning facial hair! lol
@markhamstra1083
2 жыл бұрын
Very little of what Simon presents is his own opinion. He’s paid to read scripts that are prepared by others, and he doesn’t expend much effort on things like verifying facts or learning pronunciation.
@sdv73168
2 жыл бұрын
This guy is all over the map with his history, lol Charles Lindbergh traveled 3,600 miles (5,800 km) in just over 33 hours from New York to Paris. He also flew solo. So in other words Lindbergh was in fact the first to fly over the Atlantic. He went further then anyone else, almost double what the British duo accomplished. Funny how those 80 men don't exist in history books 🤔 (this is called sarcasm, lol)
@peterpike
2 жыл бұрын
If by "heavy lifting" you mean "committing genocide against the Poles and later being caught in a surprise attack because Germany saw they were already setting up for their own offensive attack and so they attacked first and almost made it to Moscow before winter happened to kill the offensive" then yeah, the Soviet Union did all the heavy lifting.
@SherriLyle80s
2 жыл бұрын
I'm 42 and was taught the truth about all of these including the raising of tariffs that caused the Great Depression etc. The thing is that history lessons can be just little blurbs or a paragraphs in a large book and we forget semantics over time. I can't even remember what I had for breakfast 🤪
@toemblem
2 жыл бұрын
Did you see Ferris Bueller's day off? In 1930, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, in an effort to alleviate the effects of the... Anyone? Anyone?... the Great Depression, passed the... Anyone? Anyone? The tariff bill? The Hawley-Smoot Tariff Act? Which, anyone? Raised or lowered?... raised tariffs, in an effort to collect more revenue for the federal government. Did it work? Anyone? Anyone know the effects? It did not work, and the United States sank deeper into the Great Depression. Today we have a similar debate over this. Anyone know what this is? Class? Anyone? Anyone? Anyone seen this before? The Laffer Curve. Anyone know what this says? It says that at this point on the revenue curve, you will get exactly the same amount of revenue as at this point. This is very controversial. Does anyone know what Vice President Bush called this in 1980? Anyone? Something-d-o-o economics. "Voodoo" economics.
@gregoryfloriolli9031
2 жыл бұрын
Here’s one that I just leaned yesterday: Copernicus wasn’t the first person to posit a heliocentric view. Archimedes mentions a book by a Greek in 300 BC named Aristarchus who was the first to theorize that the sun was the center of the solar system. Also, some people claim the Irish discovered America, in particular an Irish monk named St Brendan.
@lavenderoh
2 жыл бұрын
I think Native Americans discovered it. And by discovered, I mean simply existed without the need of a white person knowing about their land.
@robertcartwright4374
2 жыл бұрын
The Firesign Theater used to joke "America lost WW2." "We lost?" "We were fighting fascism, remember?"
@HH-hd7nd
2 жыл бұрын
3:10 It's a bit more complicated than that. - The Allies treated the Central Powers unfairly after WW1. The Treaty of Versailles was designed specifically to humilate Germany which understandably enraged the German population. Likewise the claim that Germany and Germany alone was to held responsible and the Allies had done nothing wrong is not only insulting, it is also wrong. The Allies (Russia, the British Empire and France) are just as responsible as Germany and Austria-Hungary. - The reparation payments Germany had to pay collapsed the German economy and pushed large parts of the population into starvation which in turn increased the anger. - At the end of the 1920ties the economy started slowly to recover....only to collapse again and even worse than before in the Great Depression of 1929. The Great Depression was a consequence of unregulated capitalism btw and had its origin in the USA, just as the crash of 2008 and most likely the next crash as well. There where also issues in the design of the Weimar Republic's parliament which was maybe the most democratic parliament ever. However - it suffered severely from an overabundance of political parties which made it easier for the extremist parties, most notably the NSDAP and their arch enemies , the KPD (the Communist Party) to interfere with the government and collapse one government after the other. After the crash of 1929 poverty and unemployment where super high. This was the twist Hitler used to win the election - he promised the people jobs for everyone and better wages. Sounds familiar doesn't it? Yep, the populists of today, be it in Brazil, the USA, the UK or elsewhere, follow the playbook of the NSDAP almost to the letter. This is also the reason why these people are so dangerous.
@ac1455
2 жыл бұрын
Public School taught me a lot of these points so I wouldn’t say Americans don’t know them, but perhaps older Americans would a few decades back
@barryfletcher7136
2 жыл бұрын
No. I went to primary school in the 1960s & 1970s and we were correctly taught about the issues in this video. Check my comment on the video.
@ac1455
2 жыл бұрын
@@barryfletcher7136 I guess Simon just didn’t have any Americans on his research staff :P
@derrickmeade4891
Жыл бұрын
@@ac1455 yeah he likes to skew his "facts Americans were taught" in this video
@chardeemacdennis1
2 жыл бұрын
I think too many Americans believe we arrived and "saved the day". The truth of WWII is that no two of the allies could have defeated Germany without the third. Russia and the UK couldn't have done it without the US. Likewise, the US and the UK couldn't have done it without Russia. It truly took all three.
@kevchard5214
2 жыл бұрын
They teach in grade school in the US that the US was the ones that conquered Germany in both wars with no help from any one else.
@KevinFarleyWV
2 жыл бұрын
Most Americans I know (I am American) know that each of the world wars was a united effort. I've only ever heard from a few youngsters that it was America alone. We all know and believe it was a united effort.
@MMuraseofSandvich
2 жыл бұрын
I suspect a big motivation for playing up the US contributions to WW2 comes from the huge losses at Omaha Beach and the air campaign that pounded Germany's industry and infrastructure to dust, not to mention the destruction of the Luftwaffe. Yes, the Soviets had the most casualties and inflicted the most damage to German troops, but it was absolutely a team effort after D-day even if the western front was only the last 5 nails in the coffin. I would also argue that a lot of the Russian casualties was because Stalin was a paranoid megalomanic who kept killing his army's officers until operation Barbarossa. I would also question dismissing the Lend Lease program that kept Britain and the USSR fighting even when the US wasn't in any direct action, or saying the US entered the war "late", 2 years after the invasion of Poland and 3-4 years before the war ended, not to mention hand waving away the entire Pacific theater like he's a writer for Strike Witches. WW1? Pure propaganda, plain and simple. Anyone who spends a few minutes studying the US during that time would know that this was Woody Wilson trying to feather his cap. Of course Britain and France wouldn't listen to him in Versailles.
@monza1002000
2 жыл бұрын
There were not huge losses at Omaha beach only 2,400 were killed or wounded on D-Day. The French civilians suffered 27,000 casualties on D-Day!
@monza1002000
2 жыл бұрын
The US were fighting in Europe for 2.5 years from 1942 till April 1945
@lawrenceallen8096
2 жыл бұрын
The war began 1 Sep 1939 and through 22 June 1941 (nearly 2 years) with the Soviet Union and NAZI Germany were allies, with plans to carve up Eastern Europe between them. And, throughout the entire war, the Soviet Union aided and abetted the Japanese Empire through a non-aggression pact. So the Axis was from Germany, to Italy, to the Soviet Union to the Empire of Japan. The menace that the USA and Britain faced together on 7 December, 1941 is this monstrous combined Tyranny, with the Soviet Union collapsing under the NAZI invasion of Russia. During the course of the war the United States gave the Soviet Union: 400,000 jeeps & trucks, 14,000 airplanes, 8,000 tractors, 13,000 tanks, 1.5 million blankets, 15 million pairs of army boots, 107,000 tons of cotton, 2.7 million tons of petrol products, 4.5 million tons of food. Yet while American & British boys were dying on ships & beaches across the Pacific, the Soviet Union had Japan's back. Japan didn't have to worry about their northern and western flanks: The Soviets would have them covered. So much so that one plane from the Doolittle Raid that emergency landed in the Soviet Union was impounded by the Soviets, and the US airmen imprisoned for a year. The USA and UK fought 3 enemies, on dozens of fronts, from the Arctic to the Sahara to the South Pacific. In the air, on the sea, below the sea, and on land. Again: mainly with American equipment from ships, to airplanes, etc. The Soviet Union fought only one enemy on in one dimension (land), and on one front: The Eastern front. The War with Japan was won with bloody military defeats, relentless destruction of Japanese cities from the air, and ultimately the threat of nuclear annihilation forced its surrender. The Soviet Union only declared war on Japan 2 days after Hiroshima, and having provided Japan a backstop during the entire war, was simply a jackal looking to rip off territory from America's kill. The Soviets rolled into a Germany that the American and other Allies had defeated on land, and made a smoldering wreck at the hand of American and British air forces. So to say "The USA didn't win WWII, they were just along for the ride. The Soviet Union Really won because they lost 11 million men killing 3 million Germans on the battlefield, but the USA lost only 400,000 each" is Soviet propaganda that still reverberates around the globe. The US and UK lost 800,000 men killing 3 million NAZI and Japanese soldiers. Isn't THAT winning: having he fewer people killed? In any event, the really is, the Soviets were the ENEMY OF THE ALLIES during the first 1/3 of the war, ALLIES with Japan for the entire war, and sucked on the battlefield. The USA and Britain won the war, period.
@monza1002000
2 жыл бұрын
@@lawrenceallen8096 So many mistakes and exaggerations for example, total number of tanks supplied by UK/USA combined 10,400, 80% of German losses occurred on the Eastern front fighting Russia, D-Day could not have happened if Russia had not been destroying German forces. All these facts are readly available from world sources please stop just relying on US info like Wikipedia!
@lawrenceallen8096
2 жыл бұрын
@@monza1002000 Yes, when the Soviet Union wasn't fighting on the NAZIS's side (for the first 1/3 of the war), they (and the winter cold) killed a lot of Germans...so? Most German soldiers died on the Eastern front. So what? WWII was far, far, far more than the Eastern Front land war. The Soviet Union only fought on its own turf, for itself and for the opportunity to absorb conquered lands into the Soviet Union. Period. But WWII was global. And after giving the Soviet Union all the resources and arms we did, the Soviets thanked us by imprisoning our AMERICAN AIRMEN from the Doolittle Raid: couldn't be bothered to help us fight the Japanese Empire. The Soviets SUCKED on the battlefield: losing 11 million men to Germany's 3 million... even with all the equipment we gave them. Soviet's had 4:1 losses vs. the enemy. In 1939 the "Free World" was facing 3 evil countries that returned slavery to Humanity: (1) NAZI Germany, that returned slavery to Central & Western Europe, (2) Japan, that returned slavery to Asia, and (3) The Soviet Union that returned slavery to Eastern Europe/Asia in 1918 (more people died as property of the Soviet Union in their slave camp Gulags than ever existed in the American Antebellum South). But I will concede: the Italy and Normandy invasions were made easier because of the Soviet Union fighting on the Eastern Front.
@KimberlyGreen
2 жыл бұрын
"not been genetically proven" Any interest in doing so? I've had mine done. Got about 40% Scottish & 7% Irish in me (County Leitrim). PS: Highly recommend reading "The Year 1000" by Robert Lacey. Viking is basically a term for "Scandinavian pirate" and the book is great for learning how they influenced English, Scottish & Irish culture. It's an easy read.
@robinsmith5442
2 жыл бұрын
You're like me. I got 50% Scottish and 14% Irish. I do have 10% Norway probably from my line from Shetland.
@KimberlyGreen
2 жыл бұрын
@@robinsmith5442 Yep, my current Ancestry estimate includes 2% Swedish/Denmark. It also includes some Germanic Europe, due to a known Swiss ancestor. None of the mix is a surprise, but certainly interesting, wouldn't you agree?
@mattheweudy2396
2 жыл бұрын
I’m taking a note of that book, sounds interesting
@robinsmith5442
2 жыл бұрын
@@KimberlyGreen I was surprised when I came back with 10% Iberian peninsula. 😀 I'm whiter than white! I wonder how they came up with Germanic and not Swiss. It makes me wonder why they came up with that.
@KimberlyGreen
2 жыл бұрын
@@robinsmith5442 The core of the region is what we know of today as Germany. But it stretches into parts of Switzerland, Austria, etc. It's basically where the ancient Germanic tribes existed from the time of the Romans. In fact, the Swiss canton where my ancestor comes from is the last where the hereditary Prussian kings maintained influence. My ancestor had to renounce any allegiance to the Prussian king on his naturalization application. Look up Neuchâtel Crisis if you're curious.
@alecharris6915
2 жыл бұрын
As an American I’m happy to say only the one about the Great Depression was news to me
@Sup_D
2 жыл бұрын
Well, there are *still many people* who think "Earth is Flat", and they claim that all the talk about Round Earth is a big conspiracy.
@troystroessenreuther8088
2 жыл бұрын
Once again, that was a very interesting video. I have to admit I really believed (as an American) a couple of them were facts. Thanks for the education lesson! Also, I hope the heat wave where you are has died down a bit... the temperature is finally tolerable where I'm living. Have a great evening!
@DianeJennings
2 жыл бұрын
I enjoy learning and Im glad you do too!
@barryfletcher7136
2 жыл бұрын
Please read my comments.
@jeffreiland7463
2 жыл бұрын
@Troy --- If, for whatever reason, you have believed something for years or decades, don't you think a little research on you own would be in order, before you just, out of hand, believe some guy you don't even know on some youtube channel. Or is it the pretty red head that makes you say ---- Oh, uh, umm, uh, I didn't uh, know dat, .... but OK. ----- I know you're not going to think this is flattering, but I'm genuinely curious to know the psychology behind it.
@troystroessenreuther8088
2 жыл бұрын
@@jeffreiland7463 - I can see where you're coming from, but I'll be the first to admit that I don't know everything about everything. If something doesn't peak my interest, I'm not going to look further into it. I would definitely research something if I had doubts on it, but the fact that I didn't know that Christopher Columbus didn't set foot in America is just one of countless details of history that I may not have gotten correct. I would be very impressed if you could honestly say to me that every "fact" you know is correct and true, because you've researched every one of them. I guess what I would find curious is if you've actually done extensive research on every fact that you've ever learned. If you do have any other questions as to my psychology, please feel free to ask. I find you're question very intriguing. Thanks!
@troystroessenreuther8088
2 жыл бұрын
@@barryfletcher7136 I really would have liked to read your comments, but with over 1,200 comments, I'm afraid I don't have time to look for it. Sorry.
@assignments5094
Жыл бұрын
As the granddaughter of two WWII veterans (one at Iwo Jima, the other fought in Germany) I’m offended by his attitude. We are not taught here in the US that we deserve all the credit for the two world wars. We are taught that we were essential and integral as were the other Allies and in particular the Soviets. Also, that our entrance into these wars hastened the end of the wars. Most of the other things he brings up are things children might believe before they are taught any significant history about these events. We teach Social Studies in elementary school. History is only a part of that, and in those grades mostly focuses on Native American people and the explorers. We are not taught Columbus discovered America. At least I wasn’t, and I am 49. And I don’t know anyone who thinks Lindbergh was first to cross. We were taught correctly that he was first to do it solo.
@timlamb6196
2 жыл бұрын
I am 55 and borm n and raised in the U.S. and I never gave credit to one particular country for winning the world wars. It was a joint effort by the allies.
@neilis2405
2 жыл бұрын
Lol I love it when I see two KZitemrs that I watch acknowledge each other. Simon is one of my favorites :). PS I'm pretty sure I'm from Vikings too. My DNA ancestry report says I'm 58% Scottish with 27% Scandinavian (and the rest a hodgepodge mix). They were good at spreading their genetics. I'm also blonde haired/blue eyed :).
@elfdogre2181
2 жыл бұрын
Regarding the WWII thing: I learned that it was an ALLIED effort that ended the German war machine. So, that was Britain, America, and all of the other allied nations. So no, as an American I do not say, nor think, that America won WWII. We were part of an allied effort: Allies v Axis powers. While there may be some Americans who think we did it all, there are also Americans who don't know things like which countries border our nation, or how many continents are there, or what language do people in Idaho speak, or how many dimes are in a dollar, etc... I saw these questions being asked in one of those "ask people on the street" videos. The people being asked were amazingly uninformed.
@reggievangleason9511
2 жыл бұрын
Diane, you are correct. I do not think most Americans believe we were chiefly responsible for Germany’s defeat. However, THIS American knows that it was Winston Churchill’s leadership and the courage of the British people that HALTED the Germany’s total conquest of Europe. . . . . . Also, Lindbergh was special because he flew nonstop from NEW YORK to PARIS, a lot harder than Newfoundland to Ireland.
@billvanhorn7877
Жыл бұрын
Hi Diane, 71 year old American male who just recently found your reaction podcast on the internet. I find you absolutely delightful. As far as the list you had of events that many people think are true, but actually are not true. My thought is that any educated American knows knows what is true or not true. But I will say that in elementary school back in the 1950s, children were in fact taught that Columbus discovered America and in his time people thought the world was flat. Not sure if you know this or not, but even today, in 2023, there are people who still believe the world is flat. There is a group called THE FLAT EARTH SOCIETY that says they can prove the earth is flat. Just like there are people who believe the USA faked the moon landing in 1969, and it was all filmed in a movie studio. Sheesh!! Keep up you podcast. You are funny and adorable. The world needs more funny and adorable people.
@kevinstewart3595
2 жыл бұрын
Churchill knew he had no chance without the Yankees. The USSR survived with enormous aid from the USA before Pearl Harbor. Japan was defeated with no practical help from the Russians or British. Without American involvement, Europe was doomed, Africa doomed, the Pacific doomed. Chewie knows all of this. I can see it when he rolled his eyes.
@vainwretch
2 жыл бұрын
During WW2 most of Europe was already occupied by Germany. The UK was all that was free when America stepped in. Without American troops , deaths ,planes and other equipment Europe would have become Germanies . After the war in Europe the British had not much heart or money to fight against Japan. Ask Aussies who ended the war because America was there.
@johnstraub7494
2 жыл бұрын
I had read somewhere, that the US Army was just outside of Berlin and ready to move in and capture the city, but were told to stand down and allow Russia to get the glory for defeating Berlin. A decision that may have been highly regretted not long after.
@tykemorris
2 жыл бұрын
My dad was in the Berlin area at that time but as an escaped POW. The US forces stopped at the Rhein river rather than race Russia to Berlin 60 miles away. It was not to let Russia get glory and the regrettable decisions had already been made months earlier at Yalta. The Allied leaders Stalin, Churchill and Roosevelt had already met and determined which country would occupy which land. So America agreed in advance to give Russia control over half of Berlin and the area surrounding Berlin. By the time Eisenhower advanced his furthest, he saw no reason to lose any more men for land he was expected to evacuate anyway.
@markellis6101
2 жыл бұрын
Post World War II was the cold war, and with Russia and the United States as adversaries, there wasn't much emphasis on the contribution by the Soviet Union in American schools at the time. They just glossed over with something like the Evil Communists were our allies in WWII. That was literally what we were taught. Also, the Soviets used American Equipment as someone else pointed out (as did the British) before the entrance of the USA into the war, so many would say the Soviets provided the manpower and the United States provided the equipment. Much like the current situation in the Ukraine. Basic military doctrine is you lose if one of two things happen: 1) You lose the will to fight or 2) You run out of supply. The Soviet Union would have lost had it not been for the massive amount of aid sent by the United States.
@bigplanett
2 жыл бұрын
In WWI we showed up late and served mainly to push the war in the Allies favor since both sides were beyond exhausted at that point. In WWII we were late again, but the supply support we provided from the beginning was crucial to the war effort.
@RichJarvis
Жыл бұрын
I am a 37 year old American and lived in America my entire life. Never once have I ever heard any American say that we are chiefly responsible for the victory in World War II. I have no idea where he’s getting that from
@andrewpieper8395
2 жыл бұрын
I was educated in America in the 80's and can honestly say that I knew the truth of every point he made before he made it, except the Lindberg one. So I'm not sure who believes these misconceptions, maybe people who slept through World History in high school.
@josephaskins1996
2 жыл бұрын
So here's the deal, as an American who takes an avid interest in our history, I do in fact know most of these are debatable, however, Japan attacked the US because strategically, the Phillipines sit in the perfect place to interdict flow of goods from modern Indonesia to Japan, and at the time, the Phillipines were a US territory housing US Naval and Air Bases, and the US certainly (at least in Japan's mind) would have intervened if the Dutch East Indies had been taken over. Additionally, to the other WWII counterpoint that the US didn't win WWII, no we couldn't have done it alone, however, the US and the UK are the only ones that engaged in every theater of operations against every Axis Power, the Soviet Union was bolstered by resources from the Western Allies, and the US provided an incredible array of resources, infrastructure, personnel and equipment, to its own forces in 5 different theaters of operations, but also to the British and Soviet forces, an example being the Sherman tank, which saw service against all major Axis powers and with all major Allied powers. Remember, the British could only contribute so much to fight the Japanese and had to focus on the European threats to their mainland, and Stalin only declared war on Japan in 1945, and Russia does not share a land border with Italy. The US couldn't have beaten the Axis alone, but realistically, without the US that war would have been longer, costlier and just plain worse. Side note, the claim that Russia won the war in Europe single handedly can be easily debunked by simply looking at the realities of available resources the Russians had, without the Arctic convoys, which Stalin demanded resume, the Eastern Front would have been a worse stalemate than it was historically. Just because you lose more people does not mean you won a war. Going back to the main topic of mycomment, and that of most of the other Americans, it is well known that many so called "facts" of our history, are not facts at all but simplifications of the realities that existed at the time. American History, and history in general, is a complex topic and because people are involved and people create intricate and complex social, political and economic environments in which events take place, as a result of which things become much more complicated to fully understand, which leads to simplification of the known basic causes and effects of certain events.
@michaelsommers2356
2 жыл бұрын
If the US had not entered WWI, the British and French would not have won. Both countries were on their last legs. The British were running out of people, and the French army mutinied in 1917, refusing to go on any more offensives. The Germans were worse off, but there is no reason to think that they could not have held on long enough to get an armistice in place. US entry into the war not only meant more men (two million were in Europe by the end of the war, with another two million preparing to go over there), but gave a huge boost in morale to the allies. In WWII, without US aid and participation, Britain would probably not have survived. Lend-lease in general, and the destroyer-for-bases deal in particular were crucial. By the summer of 1941, the US navy was escorting convoys halfway across the Atlantic (where they were turned over to the British). USS _Greer_ had a torpedo fired at her in September, USS _Kearny_ was hit in October, and USS _Reuben James_ was sunk at the end of October. To say that Torch (the North Africa landings), and the campaign in Italy were rear-guard actions is absurd. Both were offensive operations. Also, there would have been no D-Day in 1944 if the British had had their way. They were totally opposed to that operation, and only US insistence allowed it to happen.
Пікірлер: 1,6 М.