The British fought the Second World War to defeat Hitler. This film asks why, then, did they spend so much of the conflict battling through North Africa and Italy?
Historian David Reynolds reassesses Winston Churchill’s conviction that the Mediterranean was the ‘soft underbelly’ of Hitler’s Europe. Traveling to Egypt and Italian battlefields like Cassino, scene of some of the worst carnage in western Europe, he shows how, in reality, the ‘soft underbelly’ became a dark and dangerous obsession for Churchill.
Reynolds reveals a prime minister very different from the jaw-jutting bulldog of Britain’s ‘finest hour’ in 1940 – a leader who was politically vulnerable at home, desperate to shore up a crumbling British empire abroad, losing faith in his army and even ready to deceive his American allies if it might delay fighting head to head against the Germans in Northern France. The film marks the seventieth anniversary of the Battle of El Alamein in 1942.
source
The more i learn about WWII the more i realize how with our Russia there was no way US and Britain would stop Hitler.
Damn British! " I would rather be commanded by an Arab" I loved that Man General George Patton, he was match anytime for General Montgomery.
Britain would never have survived the year 1944 let alone won the war if it hadn't been for North Atlantic Convoys that saved Britain from starvation !!!
I can find a stone here I can find a law there
The Battle Tunis in May 1943 a lot of Germans surrendered and this forced Hitler to send troops to Sicily and Italy and the Balklans. Troops they needed in the East..
Interesting views. I have never seen a documentary like it. True to history yet with a different strategic view.
Churchill was a dirty damn pig that never shot a bullet in hes entire life but send the other to die for hes fucking wrong piggy ideas. Look now the english are disappearing they become African Muslims pigs even Indians and Pakies the sons of bitches like the rest of cowards all over Europe not to mention; Faggots and fucking unsatisfied lesbians bitches. Germans lose the war?… No way; the war have being lose since day one by the fucking allied against Mr. Hitler. You want to know how?… Very simple; go in the fucking street around the corner of your house and look to every ones face and see if you see a real english people or Dutch or French, they are all changing color and faith the traitors bastards . The fucking Muslims pigs are taking over. Those motherfuckers better than the Germans?…
You all fucking blind sons of bitches stupid fuckers !!!…
I'm so glad I wasn't born at this time. we have no idea how lucky we are especially as a type one diabetic
Too many errors but still enjoyable. Monty's African wins were a turning point and he was not slow. he always set up and always defeated the krauts.
Its too much critical of churchill and as if he misunderstands where to fight.
The point here is not well made whatever it is.
The stuff about India being free has nothing to do with fighting ghermans. India was not about human life. It was not, should not, be about freedom for nations overcome by hitler but about the killing of people in order to do it. Freedom is not a just reason to kill or be killed.
Why do they spend so much time and money showing this guy everywhere? Without his popping up in all scenes, would the story be weaker?
I really like the way this is made, the narration and the narrator add a lot of interest. Too often they distract.
Invading France in 1942 , 1943 would of been a disaster .. Churchill was right
fuck fire fuck war ……..yes for love yes for peace
Ignorance is not the reason that the British narrator asks, "why the Americans spent years not invading Europe, instead in Africa and Italy." He knows the truth is that which he fails to mention, what America was doing in the Pacific. Oh, I know the "Europe first" policy. But in essence, no European power faced Japan. Oh I know, Bridge on River Kwai, and all. Trivia compared to the US effort. Even in '42, our Navy and marines were already kicking big ass in the Pacific. The only even oblique reference to the US requirement to stay committed in the Pacific is to Gen Marshall's reference as to why US could not LEAD a European invasion in '42, 43:35, ff. As usual, British narrations of WWII would lead one to think that events such as Pearl never occurred, and that Japan was some minor player out of their cognizance, after Singapore and Hong Kong, except maybe for Burma (Myanmar).
i always thought that North Africa/ mediterranean was about keeping the Germans away from British petroleum in the middle east.
Excellent…:-)
But I assume most history buffs will object….
Here's what would have happened if the allies had invaded France in '43 instead of '44. Without the deception operation, the German panzer divisions would have reached Normandy within days. More divisions would be moved from the east to Normandy within a month, via a Reich railway system which was intact and invulnerable to allied daylight bombing. The Luftwaffe would have been present and in strength, inflicting serious casualties on allied C47s. Without Mulberry, the offloading of allied forces would have been painfully slow. A greater number of tankers and troopships would have gathered off Normandy, providing easy targets for Luftwaffe bombers. Both the Luftwaffe and the allied ships would have taken serious casualties. Without PLUTO, an allied advance would have run out of fuel within a few miles. Hitler still had plenty of fuel in '43 because it wasn't until August '44 that the Ploesti oil fields were taken by the Soviets. The unloading of allied forces from the ships would have been much slower. The allies would have had a much smaller force in '43 than in '44. The German forces transferred from the east would have hit them very hard and very soon. The allies would have intermittent air superiority, but not the complete supremacy which they attained in '44. Perhaps the allies would still have broken out, but their casualties would have been much heavier and they would have been starved of fuel.
What I'm saying is: This Reynolds guy is talking complete revisionist bullsh*t. Normandy happened in '44 but not '43 for very good reasons. Churchill knew better than this historian dickhead and thank God he got it right. Just because it's on the BBC, don't believe it's authoritative or true.
Agent Garbo misled the Germans by providing them with a lie, wrapped inside plausible flannel and waffle to make it look authentic. That's essentially what's going on here.
The invasion of Italy didn't become a slow slogging match because of Churchill. It went that way because of errors made by the commanders in the field. The landing at Anzio was fouled-up because of the the American commander's timidity. General Mark Clark could have defeated the Germans near Rome, but instead chose the glory of the US Army entering the city. The tough old gut would have been much softer if the allied commanders in the field had got it right.
Utter bullsh*t. The U-boats were inflicting heavy casualties on the western allies at the start of '43. The Normandy invasion couldn't be attempted whilst the U-boats were still winning the war in the Atlantic. In postwar retrospect, the U-boat threat was hugely diminished by the summer of '44, but that wasn't predictable a few months earlier. On that basis, the Normandy invasion in '43 was out of the question. It was wiser to invade Italy instead.
Invading Italy in '43 was the right decision. The Soviets needed support with a second front in '43 and couldn't wait until '44. It's easy to say in post war retrospect that the Wehrmacht had been beaten at Kursk and would never be that strong again. This wasn't clear in '43. Another disaster could have been visited on the Soviets, or Stalin himself might have been assassinated.
Load of rubbish. In '43 the Luftwaffe was still present in strength in France, within reach of the Normandy beaches. In early '44 was the Luftwaffe withdrawn from the coastal areas of France, Belgium and Holland because of the proliferation of allied fighter strafing attacks. In '43 the Luftwaffe was alive and active. It's easier to swap an air force from front to front than it is to move panzer divisions. An active Luftwaffe over Normandy would have achieved a great slaughter.
Absolute crap. In '44, the railways across the Reich were largely destroyed. By August '44 the Germans had also lost the Ploesti oilfields, inhibiting the ability of the Germans to move supplies and troops around Europe. In '43 the railways across the Reich were largely intact. If Normandy had taken place in '43, Hitler could easily have swapped his forces from front to front. The western allies would have faced German panzer divisions en masse within a month.
Absolute bullsh*t. The Normandy invasion couldn't take place in '43 because of the German Operation Citadel (the Battle of Kursk). The allies knew about Citadel from Enigma decrypts, and the phenomenal resources which Hitler would be committing. If Citadel was launched before Kursk, Hitler would have moved his divisions to the west and sent them against Normandy instead. Even after his defeat at Kursk, Hitler could have given ground in the east and sent his armies to the west. If 50 more divisions had been thrown against Normandy within weeks of D-Day, the western allies would have been destroyed. Afterwards Hitler could have sent his army back to fight the Soviets.
Typical BB – f*cking – C bullsh*t. In '44, the Luftwaffe was a spent force. In '43, it was still very much rampant. A key ingredient in the allied air supremacy of June 1944 was the P51 Mustang. Until the spring of '44, US bombers entering Germany were being slaughtered. When the P51 allowed fighter escort all the way to Berlin, Luftwaffe fighters were withdrawn to a corridor extending from Holland into Germany. In '43, the German fighter force was readily available to strike at bombers and C47s above the Normandy beaches. By '44, the fighters were further to the north. The pilots were sitting in their cockpits and waiting for an invasion at Calais which never came. So if the Normandy invasion took place in '43, the allies would have had their work cut out.
Complete bullsh*t. Typical f*cking BBC. The invasion of France couldn't take place in '43 because Operation Fortitude North hadn't reached fruition. This was the deception operation which involved Agent Garbo, and convinced the Germans that the real invasion would come at the Pas de Calais. Without the deception operation (which wasn't ready in '43) the Germans would immediately have switched their entire western army to Normandy, possibly resulting in a second Dunkirk or Dieppe.
Load of bullsh*t. The Normandy invasion couldn't take place in '43 because PLUTO hadn't been constructed. The "Pipe Line Under The Ocean" comprised first one and eventually three pipes which allowed fuel to be sent directly to France without the need for vulnerable offshore tankers. Even so, the shortage of fuel compelled the allies had to hug the coast as they moved into Holland, instead of plunging directly into Germany. Without PLUTO, the breakout from Normandy would have been impossible and it did not exist in '43.
Load of bullsh*t. It's claimed that the western allies should have invaded France in 1943 instead of Italy. David Reynolds forgets that the Mulberry harbours had not been constructed in 1943. Without Mulberry, the offloading of men and machines would have been much more slow and would have provided easy targets for the Luftwaffe.
no closed captioning for the deaf. Why oh why? we are always forgotten. we like to learn history also!
Sideshow for the Newsreels. Just demonstartes how weak the UK was compared to Germany, USA and USSR. Wise to fight where the navy was key though- where the UK was at a huge advantage (naval combat in Europe).
Interesting documentary, but mostly a load of Bollocks. Basically an hour and a half of how Churchill was an imperialist who didn't care about anything but saving the empire. A half truth. And then , As with most leftists, opinion becomes fact to this guy. For instance. I'm no fan of FDR, but to say that a 3 term President sacrificed American troops, because a mid term election was coming up, and he needed all the support he could get, is a load of bullshit. FDR wouldn't have even been running in said election. His party members would have had seats at large, but FDR already had support from most of the opposition, at the time in question. Japan had already attacked The Untied States, Germany had declared war, I highly doubt Roosevelt thought he needed to send sacrificial lambs to get the American people behind the war in Europe, which is what the leftist narrator implies. I won't even get into his assault on Churchill. Good time killer though.
Churchill was only words & taking
Didn't give a fats ass for he's soldiers…!!always he was smart ass talking..Dunkirk-ww1-Greece-Asia..all fuck ups