My granddad was on board a minesweeper on 5th-6th June, clearing approaches to the British and Canadian beaches. He had been called up as a reservist after serving through WW1 as a boy seaman. (16 years old at Jutland). His brother in law was on HMS Roberts, a 15" monitor, shelling German positions.
Watched it twice (so far). A part of the war people don't think of. A topic that could be as boring as can be, made fascinating by a great story teller. Thanks.
Glantz, Citino, and Atkinson. Nobody does it better. Atkinson is a thorough researcher and Pulitzer-prize winning author. None better. Excellent presentation. Important points you won't find elsewhere.
Sorry Henry but if the subject is D day planning he gas not got a clue but if you want to talk about solely the US preperations and the number of k rations,whatever fgey are, I am sure he is word oerfect. 78000 US soldiers landed on Dday with 80000 Britush and Canadians but this guy discounts them all together. A totally partial view of the facts
Logistics might not be as interesting of a subject than the actual battles but I firmly believe that logistics are what determines the winners and loosers in a war. Keeping soldiers warm and fed is as important as keeping them supplied with ammunition.
The German invasion of Russia was a logistical blunder of epic proportions. Not enough ammo. Not enough fuel. Not enough vehicles or parts. Insufficient clothing. Insufficient medical. Only the professionalism of the German army, and the incompetence of the Russian army, gave the Germans any chance of success.
Being detailed-oriented, I have wondered how all the people and supplies for D-Day were handled. Very interesting and entertaining picture of how it was done.
The discussion of mine sweeping before the invasion reminded me of something I once read when it came to clearing the obstacles Rommel had emplaced to defend the beaches. The engineers who were tasked with clearing the waterline obstacles were provided with buoys to mark the channels they'd cleared so the landing craft drivers would know where they could safely travel. But, who ever was in charge of procuring the buoys neglected to specify that they should come in two different colors, one color to mark the right side of the channel and another to mark the left. In the confusion of the invasion, many of the buoys the engineers had placed were either dislodged from their mooring and floated away or were hit by fire and sunk. With only one buoy left to mark the channel there was no way to tell if it was marking the right side of the channel or the left. Several landing craft were lost when their drivers guessed wrong, missed the cleared channel and ran into one of the obstacles.
i know Im randomly asking but does anyone know a method to get back into an instagram account..? I stupidly lost my account password. I would appreciate any tricks you can give me.
@Finn Clay i really appreciate your reply. I got to the site on google and Im trying it out now. Takes quite some time so I will reply here later when my account password hopefully is recovered.
The "invasion stripes" painted on the aircraft were in black and white. It is sad to see that even today, the average American infantryman is still carrying way too much additional weight...
I have read recently that prior to invasion day the "British and Canadian" beaches were closely surveyed and navigation markers were installed by the British Navy's Special Boat Service but that the Americans did not risk using marks which partially led to the mess at Omaha beach (and I assume also Utah too).
I really liked the lecture! He really paints a great visual as to the huge amounts of material that was earmarked for the invasion. My only complaint to this type of lecture is the q&a portion. There is invariably a whole slew of questions asked that the “questioner” already knows the answer. It always seems to me that these people just want attention! Aka- “look how smart I am!” (Slapton Sands question for example)...
lol regarding the tunnel...what are they gonna do when they pop up and out of the tunnel as soon as it's done very very interesting...he even knew Ike's smoking habits and blood pressure
Yes. And it was he who delivered that talk at St.Paul's School in which he succinctly and brilliantly explained to all present how the operation would be conducted and what the plan, HIS plan, was for the subsequent operations which would lead to the utter defeat of the German armies in France.I really can't comprehend how Atkinson has managed to deliver this lecture without hardly a mention of Monty other than in his anecdote about his "Double", Clifton James. He even managed to make that sound disparaging. 🙄
Would be interesting to know how many one-off morphine syringes were distributed: ...nothing more demoralising than hearing a comrade screaming after his foot blown off. He does tell us how much penicillin & plasma (carefully split along skin color lines). AFAIK no grey-market developed in those syringes - which didn't always work due to e.g. high / low temperature
As a boy I talked with some navy and army men who made the invasion. That was the early 1960's and the men were young enough and so were their memories to make it real.
Some attempt at aerial reconnaissance was undertaken by the Germans. They had a few high performance, very high altitude planes. Allies responded quickly and built similar aircraft; job done.
I do enjoy these stories of British deceptions. Or, should I say that I get the utmost pleasure from that chap recounting tales of British duplicity and the flurry of absurd & fruitless scurrying about it causes amongst Gerry's high command.
The impact on the lives of civilians in war-torn countries in Europe and on the Pacific islands during WW2 was enormous. Caught in a crossfire in a conflict in which they had no control over.
I believe it may have been a slightly safer passage. Have to get them into port as quickly as possible. Imagine the devastating loss of life if just one U Boat had got lucky.
@@ozdorothyfan U-boats preferred to operate in a picket line in the mid-Atlantic beyond the range of search aircraft. normal tactic to is to wait for a convey. if day time, submerge and let it pass. then surface and over take at night for an attack. Ships that can cruise at 20kt sustained were not considered vulnerable, hence it was routine for cruise liners to sail alone, while typical merchants capable of 10kt were considered vulnerable. Indianapolis was not given an escort because she could cruise sustained at 20kt+, but was sunk in part because she took a direct route from Guam to the Leyte, and it it not hard to figure out that there would be traffic between a major US base and a forward base
At the time Liverpool dwarfed Glasgow, being the largest operational port in the world. 100,000s of US troops did embark at Liverpool, which had the passenger landing stage (the largest floating structure in the world). But cargo was the priority. All the Mustangs came into Liverpool, in knock down form, being finished off at a factory at Liverpool airport. Then test flown over the Mersey estuary by young girls.
@@joechang8696 They didn't have cruise liners back then. They had ocean liners that were a different design. They were built to cross the Atlantic in as short a time as possible. Cruise liners are common now when speed is less important than fuel economy and comfort. They are not intended to go from point A to point B as fast as possible. They are also designed to provide as may balconies as possible. As far as I know, the only remaining ocean liner is the Queen Mary II.
Glasgow and Greenock were on the River Clyde which made it easier to spot U-boats. German planes didn’t have the same fuel capacity to take them to Glasgow and Greenock. They had railways that lead straight into the Glasgow and Greenock ports that took the soldiers quickly to the south of England.
It fell to General Montgomery (as the Land Force Commander) to give the initial presentation of his strategic plan for the Normandy Campaign at St. Paul's School on the 7th April 1944 to the military top brass, and then again on 15th May 1944 to the assembled senior military and various VIPs. Montgomery was praised for the clarity of his delivery, and there could be no misunderstanding of the tactical battle he intended his armies to fight. The Anglo-Canadian forces of 21 Army Group would 'suck-in' the bulk of the Panzer divisions onto the British sector, enabling General Bradley time to formulate a breakout from the American sector ("Operation Cobra") against diminished opposition. This was achieved. Montgomery had predicted the Campaign would end with victory for the Allies by D+90. In fact it concluded 11 days earlier.
Indeed. And not only was Normandy won ahead of schedule, but Montgomerys British 21st Army Group was out of France and had taken Brussels, Belgium by the time only Paris was the target.
Yep. And look at what Hollywood did to that St Paul's School presentation. In Ike Ten Days to D-Day or some such rubbish, Montgomery is wrongly shown as trying to get people not to smoke, and then a couple of wise yanks speak about how Eisenhower let Montgomery make the presentation as some sort of favour to soothe his ego. As if a zero combat, know nothing like Eisenhower was ever going to be able to make presentation like that.
Fan Boys to the rescue of England's most quirky General.A pathetic mentality is still pathetic regardless of how you try to justify it. Monty started his revision almost immediately when it was obvious he was no commander and got stuck after 6 months of planning.The German Panzers not Monty that decided where they would go. Bernard they already been bounced off the continent once before. He stated at this very conference Caen was a D-Day objective. *Decision in Normandy,by Carlo D'este,p.80 HQ 21 Army Group,14 April 1944 ,B.L. Montgomery, CiC ."the whole of aggressive tactics would be to retain the initiative ourselves and to cause alarm in the minds of the enemy.To be successful, such tactics must be adopted on D-Day; to wait till D plus 1 would be to lose the opportunity, and also to lose the initiative.* There you have it the chirpy chimp sealing his own rep yet again
Indeed, isn't it odd that Atkinson not only didn't mention that at all, but never even uttered Monty's name, the man who would command the entire Operation from the moment the first Allied boot hit the sands of Normandy. The presentation at St.Paul's School finally banished all doubts in Churchill's mind about Overlord, he commented afterwards that he felt himself hardening to the enterprise.Apparently all who listened to it were afterwards convinced that was not only possible but that success was virtually certain.
Heavy stuff ... Very heavy !! That's why we are all proud in my Islands and to you the USA! We both owe a huge debt to the youth of the generations of both our countries😢 I say thank you America and the commonwealth countries Like Canada Anzac and India for my freedom today and in my children's future .. 👏👏👏👏👏
The planning done by General Morgan's team over a year before Eisenhower took coomand was invaluable to the success of Overlord but is rarely acknowledged - and, sadly, this lecture is no exception.
@@joealp8196 There was no point in segregating blood in the U.K. … look at the British soldiers crossing the channel on D-Day…..they were all white. That was why the numbers determined the lack of any transfusion policy in the U.K.
@@Petal4822 Britain had many thousands of imperial troops fighting in all theatres of the war; over 2 million in the British Indian Army alone. There was no blood segregation. You have not shown any causal link between numbers and policy.
Around 5:44 Mr Atkinson makes the surprisingly uninformed comment about towns in France that no one in America had heard of before. Of course, Mr Atkinson offers no evidence for such a conclusory statement and is oblivious to the fact that the AEF had spent substantial time in France during the First World War. My maternal grandfather (and I bet his fellow soldiers) in the AEF sure knew about them.
@@EllieMaes-Grandad, I agree that many lessons were learned that proved useful later. But the same could be said of any military defeat. That doesn't make it a victory. The US Navy learned an awful lot about night fighting at Savo Island, so they won the next nighttime cruiser engagement at Cape Esperance, but it remains the worst defeat they ever suffered at sea. Dieppe was a tactical disaster.
@@stevenhenry9605 I would never attribute any idea of 'victory' to the Dieppe raid. The results were very bad, but if what was learnt from it benefitted D-day, not a disaster.
St nazaire raid a failure!!!.. The dry dock wasn't operational until after the war... The Tirptitz never felt Norwegian waters ..and was sunk finally by RAF...
@@pauljshields123 No *fact.* As been mentioned the dock at St.Nazaire was made inoperable to large German warships. The raid was success achieving its aims.
@@pauljshields123 I got that impression as well. Dieppe was not a failure. It was a *test* of enemy defences. No matter what the outcome, it was to *analyse* the enemy defences.
Quartermaster Atkinson can, at times, seem a bit too reliant on the recitation of the staggering amounts of material produced, shipped and consumed by an antagonist in a major war. I suppose some might find it interesting to know the number of telephone poles shipped from the U.S. to Great Britain during the war . . . but I don't . . . especially not when it's just one of a thousand other such statistics we're presented ( i.e. the tonnage of K-rations, the number of landing crafts and pairs of socks, and so on and on and on). Obviously, one's supplies will often play a crucial, critical role in warfare. But, I don't know if it must overshadow, or drown out, the human stories and personalities in the RETELLING of a history . . . of those involved in, and/or behind, the conflict. On the other hand, as a reader or an audience, to each his own, of course.
I believe the specifics aren’t what’s important here. I think what makes it interesting is the sheer scale of what was required. Most viewers probably never considered they’d need to install fresh telephone lines across Europe, let-a-lone erect new poles. The gathering of materiel and the logistical problem solving required is all part of the human story. For every bandage that made its way to France, a hundred average people needed to figure out the best, the cheapest, and most efficient way to make it and get it there.
There's nothing wrong with Atkinson's style, dawg, it's just your preference. You could have just looked for a different lecture on video or something and it would've been fine, but voicing this sort of opinion here seems like you think these details don't matter enough to be discussed, which is wrong.
@@dakotatypo2805 I don't disagree, and I don't want to discount Atkinson's efforts as an excellent historian. I've read his books. I probably should have read the title of this talk more carefully . . . "The PLANNING of the Longest Day." I'm expressing my preferences, a low threshold for the stats stuff. To each his own, of coourse.
Love the presentation but the stage is a bit much. A cross between a stand up comedy bar and a whore house. Especially love the Star Track curtain which reminds me of an eight grade science fair. But I’ll say great presentation, hopefully I’ll get over the stage vertigo the backdrop caused. Oh forgot to mention the lovely ORANGE allowing floor which reminds me of a TN football game or sone kind sacrificial platform used by your favorite satanic cult for sacrifices. Keep up the great work, loose your interior designer though. Maybe hand cuff some plans to him/her and chuck em’ into the South China Sea.
Only 4 minutes in and oh dear. Americans just can't help themselves. As if it was primarily an American operation. Three generals mentioned. All American. Obviously Eisenhower but then Montgomery is the second surely. Fewer than half the troops were American. Air Force and naval was down to one third and one quarter American. I can only hope he does better on reconnaissance, intelligence, technical innovation etc etc.
Yes, it is tiresome, and Rick Atkinson appears to be blind to the contribution of anyone but Americans. Britain's massive contribution is virtually ignored at 10:30 when I stopped watching, so perhaps I've done him an injustice. Monty was the architect of the OVERLORD campaign and to try to erase that is an historical distortion.
@@terrysmith9362 I'm taking nothing away from our guys and for such a small country Britain did punch above its weight, but without America and Americas industrial might we would of not been able to launch such a massive operation. The second world war was won on the production lines of Detroit.
@@pwr2al4 The many British and Canadian military cemetries aroind Normandy say otherwise. We Brits do not insult the many brave American who fought at Normandy but ignorant people like some are not even aware of the Anglo bit of the Anglo American invasion
