There's a great interview of the British commander who gave the order to shell Cleves, knowing many French civilians would die. He said the memory would always wake him up at night.
We tend to forget that by the time the British had liberated Caen, over 34,000 Frence civilians had lost their lives in the Battle of Normandy. This was twice the number of allied soldiers killed in the campaign. Much can be made of Montgomery's decision to bomb Caen at the time, but as it turned out most of the Germans had escaped to the south anyway. Such is war.
British intelligence. Russian blood. American money. And the countless, inspirational, and profound sacrifices of millions all across the globe won that war. France, you are beloved.
@@LS-rw9yp Untrue, as a Canadian we didn't give as much blood as the Russians, as many supplies as the Americans, or lost as much influence as the British after the war. We gave a lot of blood and material for the war effort, but don't minimize the contributions of the larger allies out of frustration of being forgotten by the rest of the world.
Americans perspective:has the bloodiest battle British:many men getting shot by Germans in houses Canada:many soldiers dying from Germans in houses French:many civilians getting shot for fighting back against the Germans with allies
Bizarre to mention the stories of rape in this piece. By all means, do a piece about that, but it tarnishes the sacrifice of the moral young men who disembarked that day to mention rapists during a commemoration of their sacrifice. Time and a place, just my opinion
Hardly bizarre. Pertinent rather. The segment was about the POV of the occupied French people. Sure, it was a largely a revelry of being liberated but some war crimes were indeed committed on the French population so they do need to be included in the larger narrative.
Why do the French ignore the British contribution to D-Day? 75 percent of the landing craft were British, as were most of the planes. All of the technical innovations that aided the landings were British. As far as performance is concerned, the Americans advanced 1Łmiles (2.4 km) that day; the British and Canadians, 6 miles (9.5 km), despite the fact that they were counterattacked. Yet Queen Elizabeth was not invited to Normandy for the anniversary. The Americans have for decades been trying to edit the British out of the history of World War II, and it would seem the French have become weary of showing gratitude to the main contributor to the achievements of this most important event in 1944.
Regardless, America would have not sat out, you should research a bit about FDR, you will learn a lot. WWI was so horrible, no one wanted to fight another World War, and were not ready. Poland suffered dearly due to this, but let's not forget the U.S.S.R. suffered great Judgement, for joining Germany in the beginning. At their hands many innocent Polish People died. FDR was steering the U.S. towards War, before Dec.7, 1941. Even though, he ran on a "No More War" ticket, he supplied Countries at War with much needed supplies. Though Churchill's prayer was answered earlier than he expected, there was still much work to be done. Though America, regardless of Pearl Harbor, certainly was going to be a participant in WWII no matter what.
@@knightlife98 2 years late but also the fact FDR was letting Airman from the US Army Air Corps go to Britain and volunteer even tho they were still in the US Army all American volunteers during the air campaign at the battle of Britain they made up the Eagle Squadron's
That's an unfair statement. France was absolutely gutted in WWI. They lost SO many men. For comparison (in WWI) soldiers dead by country: France: 1,327,000 United States: 117,000 Great Britain Ireland: 750,000 Austro-Hungarian Empire: 1,460,000 Germany: 2,037,000 And that's just the DEAD. France had 1 MILLION crippled soldiers, that required serious care. Their economy was destroyed, and they were scratching up every penny to care for the survivors. Most of Northeastern France, where their best agricultural land and industry was located was destroyed, the farmland decimated. Please read about Verdun. It's sobering. They were a broken nation, with nothing left to fight with. They had the elderly, wounded veterans, and children. An entire generation, lost. Entire towns and villages had NO young men left. All dead. The young men they had, were the children of fallen fathers, brothers. Mothers had already buried most of the men in their family. Those few young men were THE LAST surviving males. France knew if they sent them, they'd have nothing left.
Uh what, literally 60 percent of the landing force was American, most of the paratroops American. Why do you want to muddy an alliance that saved Western Europe.
@@Coltboy00 Normally have nothing but respect for the US & UK, it was an alliance that saved the world not just Europe. But I am getting tired of ignorance and even worse, criminally downplaying others who actually did more and yet take credit for far to much when it's just rubbish... The facts are - the total number of allied troops came up to 156,000! Who landed in France on 6 June. ONLY 73,000 were (American), and 83,000 (British Commonwealth ). It was the British Commonwealth who had 60% not America so don't lie. They were also better equipped and were more effective on the battlefield that day - fighting harder benches. The Yanks got wreaked and needed to be carried by British forces as U.S forces were pinned down and isolated so the British could not press on. The Commonwealth naval contingent was twice that of the Americans as well!! Facts. The Americans were the lesser partner in the entire affair just as they were in Africa and Italy where the British did most of the fighting. Why are American so poorly educated in history, so biased. We British the love the Americans, we consider them family but don't take the piss.
The Commonwealth committed more troops, but not all from one country. There was roughly 70k Americans, 60k British and 20k Canadian. "Better equipped, more effective" Highly debatable and way too broad of a statement. It was the largest invasion in history. There were many units. Also fighting harder beaches? Again debatable. Omaha is remembered as one of the toughest. You're right though, our grandfathers didn't fight and die together for us to have dick measuring contests about every allied campaign.
@@user-yk7dc9hu2k There is nothing to debate - Its a fact. The Americans had there role but seem to like to take the credit, which is the issue. It was the British commonwealth forces that were the successors of D-day, the American failed for the most fighting lesser protected areas on the beach as the German lines were strongest at the centre. The tanks were known, collectively, as Hobart's “Funnies”. On the British and Canadian beaches where they were used - Gold, Sword and Juno - the landings were a massive success and mostly the reason why the battle was won. The Allies had tried an test invasion before hand and it failed which is where the British had come with with a new set of tanks which prove to be to much for German defences. So yes the British have better equipment at hand for the intended purpose. The American landings - code-named Utah and Omaha beaches - the DDs fared far worse. Willey says the US commanders stayed rigidly to the original plan, launching their tanks from at least two miles away. At Omaha, most of the DD tanks launched sank in the choppy waters. You will find that that Briton mobilised five million that served in the armed forces by 1945 serving from Denmark to China so do not talk about numbers, the British were fighting all over the world and owned much of it hence you see (British Canadian) troops there as well which meant the British had a larger presence and actually won the battle as and were slowed down by the bogged-pinned down American divisions which they had to move back to support rather than press on. On D-day, it was the Royal Navy that dwarfed any other allied Naval presence and it was British commonwealth troops that the dominant force which were much more effective on the battlefield It was the British that shot down twice as many Luftwaffe aircraft as they lost.. So yes do not make it about Americans when they had done the least and had less of everything, it was only considered allied due to the Americans being there as the every other troop fell under the British Empire that does not make American sacrifice any lesser, many give there lives for Briton and the war selflessly, real men strong men with conviction and integrity and should be respected as such. We love our American family but do not try disrespect the people nations of peoples who actually did the most with more succus by removing it and taking all the credit. The U.S did the least in WW2- Its a fact. Without them though, many more millions world have died, and the UK and Russia would have struggled a great deal more with U.S aid being sent over.
@@user-yk7dc9hu2k Whatever? Look fella, facts and only facts. And most of the combat was in Europe, the heart of the war was in Europe.. Japan was a side show in comparison.
Extremely weird to mention a rape victim. This is why your channel is so unpopular. It's a disgrace to the young men who fought during The invasion. Now they are rapists?!
She didn’t say they were all rapists. She mentioned that amongst overwhelming celebration there were some bad things. We can’t shroud history in rose tinted glasses. This was a very moving piece and very well rounded. Why be so scared of truth?
