SABATON - Bismarck. Reaction/Analysis. 

I've been hesitant to write this, but I can't hold it back anymore. Will Ghezzi: your historical description is correct, at least as to my knowledge, thank you for that. BUT: There are a few issues that I have with the text of this song, and I don't know if others feel them as well. First of all, and the most minor issue I have is that all capital ships in either the English or German languages are attributed as female. I don't know about Swedish and I will give them the benefit of a doubt, but it bothers me somewhat if the band is talking about having a lot of research going into their historical context, that they made this grammatical mistake. So, if anything, that battleship would have to have been addressed "[Queen] of the ocean" and "[She] was made to rule the seven seas". It should have been no problem for Sabaton to avoid this grammatical error without disrupting the "flow" of the text. Second of all, as far as I know, the Bismarck-class of battleships (including her sister ship, Tirpitz) weren't so much "flagships" of the German Kriegsmarine ("War Navy") during the Second World War. They were undoubtedly the largest ocean-going warships built by the Nazi terror regime, but - as to my knowledge - did not carry "the flag" of the commanding admiral to "lead the Kriegsmarine". They were just very powerful and dangerous machines of destruction that also were in the arsenal of the Nazis. Fortunately, the Nazis only had a very limited grasp of strategic warfare, especially naval warfare. Had they been more educated (like he British admiralty or the U.S. Navy command in the Pacific War Theater), these battleships could have wreaked even more destruction and death, on top of all the horrific losses they had caused to the Allies already. If the fascist German Navy command authorities would have had more influence or knowledge, battleships like the Bismarck and the Tirpitz should have been supported better by other, smaller vessels, like destroyer screens and maybe anti-aircraft weapons. Fortunately for the rest of the world, the political "leadership" in Germany in that time was as incompetent in naval warfare issues as they also were unwilling to finance a better organized surface navy which would have been far more difficult for the Allies to destroy. As a tactical weapon, the rules of Bismarck (which managed to nonetheless sink H.M.S. Hood) and Tirpitz (as a "fleet-in-being" in the Norwegian fjords, by its simple presence there threatening the Allied concoys to the Soviet Union across the Northern Polar Sea), these ships were used well under their potential. And as a German I am really happy that the Nazis didn't use them as strategically effective as they could have used them. So my issue is with the "[Queen] of the seven seas" line and the "to lead the Kriegsmarine" part... Both are - to my knowledge and interpretation - not correct. And don't get me wrong: because I am German, I am happy that the Nazis couldn't play these monstrosities to their full potential. Third of all, and to my most cringeworthiness, I take a severe insult at the text line "pride of a nation". Not one single thing that the Nazis did during their 12-year Reich period and the times of the most barbaric and unspeakbale crimes against Humanity that Germans (and people of other nationalities in the wake of the German war of destruction across the world) committed, cannot and must not EVER be called the "pride of a nation". This an absolute no-go and and insult to all the civilzed world! The German nation since ist "birth" as a nation-state in the North German Confederation in 1869, the German Reich in its Imperial form from 1871 to 1918, the Weimar Republic from 1918/19 to 1933, the illegitmate Nazi terrorist regime which supplanted it from 1933 to 1945, the Allied occupation of Germany from 1945-49, the Federal Republic of Germany and the German Democratic Republic from 1949-1990, and (so far) finally the re-unified Federal Republic all are _one_ single nation with so many different political constellations, currencies, agendas and forms of government (Imperial, democratic republican, fascist, occupied, communist and federal demoractic republic again), that it is very difficult for us Germans to even speak of the concept of "nation" as do cititzens of other countries, like for example French, American, or almost any others. Our (at best) checkered past with the most unspeakable and heinious crimes against Humanity committed in "the name of our nation" makes us Germans very weary of even thinking about that concept. This battleship, carrying the name of the German Reich Chancellor Otto von Bismarck who kind of was the architect of the German Reich in its Imperial form in 1871, was - if at all - the pride of the Nazi military machine, and _NOT_ and _NEVER_ the pride of the nation. And anyone who call her that has a severe touch of being in or near the realm of apologetically talking about the fascist dictatorship that almost killed civilitzation, had the Allies not found the power to stop them. In the video at 3:43, where the ship is hit by the shells of the british warships, just before the major explosions on her decks, you could see a glimpse of the Nazi war flag at the top of her mast. These scenes were - afaik - all taken from the computer game World of Warships which explains the graphical quality. In Germany, the display of the Nazi flag and other symbols of the fascist regime is a criminal offense if it is done outside the context of education on historical matters. This flag could and should have been blurred in the video and still everybody watching it would know of which nationality and regime that warship was. To describe the historical facts about that vessel without putting her into the context of the most barbaric and inhumane terrorist regime in the history of mankind (past, present, AND future) is a serious issue. To say that Sabaton try to describe the historical facts from a neutral standpoint, is a severe issue that I have with this band concerning this song. When it comes the genocidal crimes of the Nazi terrorists there can and must be no neutrality. All military history of Germany during that period of downfall of civilization in our country can never be put out there or talked about without the context of war crimes, the Sho'ah, the concentration camps, the occupation of almost all of Europe, the will to kill millions of people, and the illegitimacy of that band of insane terrorists at the top of that criminal regime. To say that "war knows no nation" in the context of WWII is a seriously wrong statement!!! The Second World War was caused by Germany in 1939 (and its allies, like Japan in 1937) and goes even further back in history, to the illegal (under the terms of the Treaty of Versailles) stationing of German soldiers in the Rhineland in 1935, the Spanish Civil War in 1936 where German military tactics were first "tested" on larger scale by bombarding inncocent civilians (Guernica), the illegal annexation of Austria (under the threat of bombing Vienna) in 1938, the destruction of Czekoslovakia in 1938/1939, and also back to the Italian wars in Libya and Ethiopia and the Japanese aggression against China. Germany is not only (and will forever be) responsible for the deaths of around 6 million people of Jewish background and all other political, religious and societal minorites during the holocaust. Germany, Italy, Japan and their Axis allies are responsible for every single human being killed during their imperialistic expansionist wars, on their own side as well as on the Allied side, civilians and military alike. EVERY single one!!! And even though the Americans in the final days of WWII had bombed Hiroshima and Nagasaki with nuclear weapons (and the military decision to this is their responsibility), they would never have been forced to do so, had not in 1933 the senile, anti-democratic Reich President Paul von Hindenburg named that insane individual (whose name I will not write down) as Chancellor of the German Reich even though his Nazi party had not gotten the majority of the vote in the Reichstag election (only a plurality). So all the (unknown number) 50-60 million killed people in that entire era are the responsibility of the Nazi regime, the Italian fascists and the Japanese militarists. Never, and under no circumstances at all, is it legitimate to say that "war knows no nation" and that these war machines were the "pride of a nation". As a German I feel deeply offended by these words and more ashamed for all the death and destruction the Nazi terrorists have caused "in the name" of my home country's "nation", but who committed their crimes in fact against the German nation itself, too. I'm sorry for this long rant. I will not talk about this again anytime soon, but I felt compelled to finally say my opinion in these troubled times. Anastasia, I always like your vidoes and will continue to watch them! I hope you get the chance to see all these great bands you have discovered performing live. Please go on! Rock hard! And all the best wishes to you and to all of the people here.

@@t.winterbahn1641 Smart... but cringe sorry.

@@t.winterbahn1641 the bismack was reffered to as male as stated by one of the survivors because the captain thought it was more fitting of its "awesome power" (not my words)

@@larsog310 Thank you for the information, Lars. Can this be confirmed by anyone? Because if that is the case, then IMHO Sabaton used the rhetoric of a Nazi military captain _willingly_, and not only against the grammatically correct common sense. This will have serious consequences for my further listening to any song from this band.

@@t.winterbahn1641 If the ship was reffered to as " he " thats just how it is. So you say that Sabaton are nazis for just using this term for a ship? Are all vegetarians also nazis now since Hitler was one or what?

This is a very important part of history and I find it sad that these things are no longer taught in school.

Same here 🤘

same here 💯🤘

Same here back in January 2020, and on the very same day I bought a ticket to see them 3 weeks later! Best decision I made that day, their shows are phenomenal!

Dear oh dear..... Bismarck's "one shotting" of Hood was skill was it? While the RN's torpedoing of Bismarck was "lucky"? Also >20% of the Royal Navy participated in the search for the Bismarck, and that number of ships (60-70) was needed to corral a fast ship that spent the week running away from the RN in the vastness of the 41 million square mile Atlantic. In the final battle just 2 battleships and cruisers dispatched Bismarck in 99 minutes.

And the last ship with the triple gun turret to fire is HMS Rodney with his massive 16 inch cannons.

@@drigerdranzer7514 Her. Traditionally ships are female, save for like ones like the Bismarck

@@dj11o9er Bismarck is one of the few that was referred to as he. But I guess I automatically do that with all ships that have male names. Feels very weird for me to call King George V and Rodney for she. Same with the Hood, from Robin Hood and Prince of Wales.

Rookie numbers

wargaming

Yes and I saw them live in NYC

Added to that the man commanding the ship is the son of a survivor of the Bismark

Actually, HMS Ark Royal was one of the first purpose-built aircraft carriers built for the Royal Navy, with HMS Hermes preceding her as the world's first aircraft carrier. HMS Courageous, HMS Glorious, and HMS Furious were all converted battlecruisers, while HMS Eagle was a converted battleship, and all four were completed before HMS Ark Royal. Moving on, Ark Royal was in service for two years, eleven months, during which time she participated in many of the early naval engagements of the war, directly and indirectly. She led the first attack and victory over a German U-boat, the U-39, dodged repeated Luftwaffe air raids, hunted the Graf Spee, participated in the capture of a German merchantman, and fought in the Norwegian Campaign. Following the capitulation of France, it was the Ark Royal's aircraft flying over the port of Mers-el-Kebir that provided targeting data for the British battle fleet in their attack on the French Navy, her own aircraft incapacitating the battleship Dunkerque. During her Mediterranean deployment, she would provide escort for convoys to Malta, provide air cover for attacks on the Italian Navy, and she then hunted commerce raiders off the Azores. Following her failure to intercept the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, she was redeployed to the Mediterranean, escorting more convoys to Malta, before receiving orders to hunt the Bismarck. It was her aircraft that damaged Bismarck's rudder and hampered the ship's maneuverability, leading to Bismarck's destruction. It was during her final months of convoy escort duty that she would be sunk. On 10 November 1941, Ark Royal was struck by one torpedo from U-81, which flooded a boiler room, her main switchboard, oil tanks, knocked out all internal communications, and brought the ship to a halt after the power to her engine rooms was knocked out. Her captain ordered her abandoned while a salvage party desperately worked to contain the damage, to no avail. After she was completely abandoned, she rolled over, broke in half, and sank. Of her crew of 1,488 officers and men, only one man was killed. Her wreck was discovered in 2002 about 35 miles from Gibraltar, at a depth of around a thousand meters.

@@nickgraff9413 : Wow. That's a hell of a history, in only a short time. I knew that the British had been experimenting with and developing aircraft carriers as a "mobile airfield" or "mobile air base" of sorts, given that the British had actually seen the potential for aircraft in naval combat before the US did, given how the Royal Air Force had used air power in World War I. I'm of the opinion it was because of the success of HMS Ark Royal and her sister ships that convinced US naval command, admirals like Halsey and Nimitz, to build aircraft carriers -- which is why the US carriers were on shakedown cruises to the north of Pearl Harbor when Japan attacked Pearl on 7 December 1941.

@@isaiahwelch8066 Following the launching and commissioning of HMS Eagle in 1917, the major powers, i.e. Japan and the United States, began experimenting with aircraft carriers. This would lead to the Hosho and USS Langley. Further aircraft carriers were conversions of existing hulls that would've been scrapped due to the Washington Naval Treaty. From there we get the above-mentioned British carriers, the American Lexington class, and the Japanese Akagi and Kaga. Throughout the 1920s and 30s, the United States and Japan lead the way in carrier development, with Billy Mitchell proving the efficacy of airpower over the existing battleship doctrine. However, this line of thinking still came secondary, and carriers were still treated as scouts and support ships, meant to work as the eyes of the fleet while battleships would provide the firepower. While the Ark Royal played a pivotal role in the sinking of the Bismark, it wasn't until the raid on Taranto that showed the world just exactly what the carrier is capable of all on it's own, and the operation to hit Taranto was only done as a means to negate the superiority of the Italian battle fleet following British losses. It is from Taranto that the Japanese started planning for a raid on Pearl Harbor, but most of the Japanese high command were still against it, considered Yamamoto's plan to be impossible, and still planned on drawing out the US Navy into a decisive fleet action at the Philippines, per the doctrine they had established and worked with for years. The Pearl Harbor Raid was, I believe, the first time multiple carriers were deployed in a singular task force, and utilized multiple, large-scale air attacks at once, while the Americans were still operating their carriers in single formations, with escorts. It wouldn't be until 1943 that the US Navy fully adopted the idea of placing multiple carriers in large task forces, while keeping each task force cohesive with the others, allowing overwhelming air superiority over the target zone while providing maximum security to the fleet. These were lessons learned from the Coral Sea, Midway, and Guadalcanal. 21 Swordfish biplanes attacked the harbor at Taranto. 353 Zekes, Vals, and Kates raided Pearl Harbor. By the end of the war, the US Navy could launch, in one massive strike, at least a thousand Hellcats, Helldivers, Dauntlesses, and Avengers, and that's not even counting the hundreds of Wildcats and Avengers the escort carriers could launch in support of ground operations and antisubmarine warfare. And that's what made aircraft carriers such devastating weapons. Their commanders experimented with, tested, and fully developed the doctrine of naval air superiority in conjunction with naval dominance. The early mistakes and shortcomings, as well as the successes from the pre-war carriers like the Ark Royal ensured the future classes would be better, stronger, more efficient, and more deadly.

You've really got completely NO idea of what went on have you? Go read the war diary of U-74 (Eitel-Friedrich Kentrat), who clearly states that he was in the area at the time of Bismarck's sinking and heard the underwater sounds of the final battle and observed British warships. So thats your first load of bollocks disproved. British ships "shit their pants" did they? Hmmm... strange how the RN spent 7 days chasing Bismarck while she herself spent the entire time running for her life after miserably failing to even SPOT a merchant ship, let alone sink one.

@Beater Bike Channel It still doesn't make any sense. We're talking about an assembly of: - 1 Aircraft carrier (the Ark Royal) - 2 Battleships (the King George V and the Rodney) - 2 heavy cruisers (the Norfolk and the Dorsetshire) - 1 light cruiser (the Sheffield) - 6 destroyers (Cossack, Sikh, Zulu, Maori, Mashona, Tartar) - 1 polish destroyer (the ORP Piorun). That's a total of 13 war ships of which at least 7 where well equipped to fight against submarines (the destroyers). Even if there had been a German submarine in the area no German captain would have been so insane and attacked this enemy fleet; it would have been complete suicide. So the british stopping the rescue of the seamen in the water was a) extreme cowardice or b) deliberate murder.

One of the main factors that you've conveniently overlooked is that all the ships that you name (some of which weren't even on the scene of the final battle) had been charging round the north Atlantic at top speed for the previous week chasing Bismarck and were VERY short of fuel. The main force had already departed the scene to begin their return to port and Tovey directed Dorsetshire and Maori alone who had the largest fuel reserve to pick up survivors. Bismarck had for the previous 24 hours been transmitting beacon signals on known U-boat & luftwaffe radio frequencies. What do you suppose she was doing that for? So many who don't know their history or understand the ugliness of war are unaware of the situation faced by Captain Martin of Dorsetshire. He would have known well about Otto Weddigen, U-9 and the RN Cruisers HMS Aboukir, Cressy & Hogue each torpedoed, one by one, by Weddigen as they stopped to rescue the survivors of the previous cruiser victim during WW1. You can also read the account of the rescue situation by Bismarck's senior survivor, Burkhard von Müllenheim-Rechberg, who in his book painfully conceded that in the same circumstances ANY captain would have be forced to leave the scene of the rescues. In your final "summing up" you forgot the third option c) A Captain's foremost responsibility being the safety of his own ship and 700 man crew, Captain Martin was forced to leave the area. If you're so concerned about the idea of the "deliberate murder" of drowning sailors, you'd best go and read about the sinking of HMS Glorious, Acasta and Ardent on 6th June 1940, by the German battleships Scharnhorst and Gneisenau, When the German admiral (Wilhelm Marschall) abandoned what was left of over 1600 RN sailors to their deaths, not mounting even the SLIGHTEST rescue efforts in spite of no other RN ships or RAF aircraft being in the vicinity. Please feel free to go and voice your horror in the comment section of this video here. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-1yAahSUiXt4.html Or is it only non-British lives you're so concerned over?

@@walterkronkitesleftshoe6684 The fuel "argument is nonsense. Rescue operations do NOT require a huge amount of fuel - on the contrary, rescue operations in calm seas require almost no fuel at all. Besides - if one or two ships where actually so short on fuel that they couldn't wait another hour or two with engines powered doen - there where 13 ships in total and many of them had NOT been on sea for weeks. If the Dorsetshire couldn't continue one of the destroyers could have easily taken over the rescue operation. Regarding the Glorious, Acasta and Ardent - a little correction at first: Scharnhorst and Gneisenau where battlecruisers, not battleships. You're wrong about about no other british ships being in the area btw - the heavy cruiser HMS Devonshire was in the area, but they had the king of Norway on board and chose not to involve themselves, not in the battle and not in any rescue operations even though the cruiser was close enough and could have reached the scene easily. The HMS Ark Royal and her escourts where also not in the immediate but in the general area. Granted - they where too far away to help directly. Besides - the Scharnhorst was substantially damaged in the battle. Should they have undertaken rescue operations? Of course. Was it murder and a violation of maritime law of the time? Yes. And still - the situation is different. In this case the Germans had 2 ships, one of them badly damaged, and an enemy heavy cruiser nearby which posed a real threat even though it was of course outgunned by the German ships. The Devonshire could have started rescue operations after the German ships left - they chose not to. When the Brits sunk the Bismarck they had 13 ships and not a single enemy ship anywhere even remotely close to the area. Oh and just as a side note - the HMS Glorious, Acasta and Ardent where on a mission to commit a war crime. They where en route to violate neutral Sweden's territory and place mines along the swedish coast (Operation Paul).

@@HH-hd7nd The admiral in charge at the scene of operations had more of an idea of the fuel status of his ships than a YT commenter 80 years after the event. And "calm seas"? Where did THAT come from? "Fuel is nonsense" Ha !!! Starting your rebuttal with such a stupid, baseless statement is not a very auspicious start but lets carry on. Please read more about the Scharnhorst / Gneisenau. I myself for many years was used to reading about them as "battlecruisers" but very much in the spirit of being "never too old to learn something new" I only discovered in the last few years that indeed the Kriegsmarine itself considered them as "battleships" (indeed sporting heavier armour than the Bismarck class), though I myself agree that ships armed with 11in guns hardly constitute battleships, but there you have it, we're both right/wrong. HMS Devonshire was NOT "in the vicinity" as you say but nearly 50 miles (or 1hr 40 mins sailing time in ideal conditions) at top speed ("reached the scene easily" indeed, maybe to recover corpses), and was operating under strict radio silence, meaning her presence was unknown to Marschall's squadron, so saying "there was a cruiser nearby" (8in guns Vs 2 x 11in gunned battleships) is disingenuous as a "reason" to abandon rescues as the Germans did not even know of its whereabouts. But I'm happy to draw a line under it as you agree that it was flagrantly in breach of "good conduct" to abandon hundreds of men to their deaths, as opposed to the direct threat that Captain Martin of Dorsetshire had good reason to believe his ship was under at the time of the Bismarck rescues. Where do you get that nonsense that there were "13 ships nearby"? Utter rubbish. As I've said above the main force had withdrawn leaving 2 ships behind which very quickly followed after the periscope alert. How do you address the judgement of Bismarck's senior survivor Baron Müllenheim-Rechberg, who understandably was furious at the abandonment of the RN rescue efforts, but then after consulting with Dorsetshire's captain, agreed that he had no other option? If you'd like a more fulsome look into the Bismarck rescue situation, google "nineteenkeys Captain Martin" (without the quote marks, I would include a link but YT kindly deletes my post if I do) it is a blog by a German who very much held your views and wrote at length about Captain Benjamin Martin being a war criminal, but after long research including contact with both Bismarck & Dorsetshire crewmembers performed a complete "about face" and freely admitted he had been wrong on the matter as he did not have all the information to hand. I'm fully aware of "operation Paul", it was as much of a warcrime as Bismarck's mission to carry out unrestricted maritime raiding, that is to destroy sea traffic of any nationality plying its trade to the UK, but that is also a subject of a different discussion. Lets keep to discussing your initial assertion and not wandering off the point.

Actually they did have a lot of money to work with. This video was made by Wargaming, the makers of the video game World of Warships. Wargaming approached the band asking if they had a song to go with their naval based game and this is what they wrote for them in the collab. They also did a song for the same company for their game World of Tanks called "Steel Commanders" where the tank in this video could be earned in game and was crewed by the members of Sabaton. Also the video for Primo Victoria was made by Wargaming and was Sabaton's start of their long term collaboration with the video game company.

oh my fucking god, this is the wrong channel for you then

wtf???

@@rou_juanma6996 don't bother, it's one of those idiots who think "any russian person = Putin"