Anyone in interested in World War II

Yes, very interesting , cheers for that

There are a lot of people on the forum's interested in WW III

Thanks for the link

Was listening to some tv programme in my sleep this morning. Interesting to hear about Erich von Manstein. I always thought Zhukov was the top dog or at least that is what I was told. I mean he probably was and won the War but it was dammned close run thing by some accounts anyway.

I have no idea who this geezer is presenting the videos but he is very good.

I thought I knew almost everything about WWII but these videos have really opened my eyes. For example I never really gave Germany’s fuel shortage much thought. Lack of oil really was Germany’s Achilles Heel.

Don't spoil it for me and tell me the ending.

Lack of oil really was Germany’s Achilles Heel.

I saw Battle of the Bulge too! Great film!

For anyone interested in a completely ludicrous, modern, "woke" interpretation of WW2, I suggest they watch the laughable BBC Sunday night drama "World On Fire".

The only thing missing from it so far has been heroic 'Trans' soldiers liberating Paris and concentration camps, but there's still time left for that I suppose.

It's such a shame. There was a decent story in there waiting to get out, but instead a good part of the time was spent simply sucking up to the BBC Diversity Dept agenda.

Agreed alun2005. The series has been a big disappointment to me. It seems in some wats to be trying to copy the excellent series Generation War but fails miserably. It is very amateurish and a little childish.

Good post alun. I watched the (closet gay) Nazi try and save the Gay Americans's (black) partner and thought why would they devalue a decent 1940s yarn by continually inserting such nonsense for the sake of modern political correctness.

"World On Fire".

I think that is a poor man's version of ''The Winds of War'' starring Robert Mitchum which is really good.
Although WOF is on a much smaller budget I would imagine.

Interesting link from Steve.

The narrator defends Hitler against his generals, whom he says did not appreciate the importance of logistics and securing the oil fields in the South.

Did you enjoy the rewrite of the Dunkirk Evacuation in 'World On Fire' ?   Some absolutely fantastic lies told there, and they just couldn't resist including a WAAAAAAAYYYYCIST white British soldier who didn't want one of the Senegalese soldiers to board a Little Ship. 

Quite honestly though we have been spoiled for choice about the number of ridiculous "woke" scenes in that drama. Who would have thought that 1940 Paris would have seen a h*m*sexual white American doctor going to the jazz clubs and falling in love with a black h*m*sexual French saxophone player, and later a h*m*sexual SS officer trying to help them? 

Incidentally, I thought that German "Generation War" drama series was damn good. 'World On Fire" is a pale imitation and much the worse for the pandering to the loony pseudo 'progressive' agenda.

Allow Allow a shocking of omission

well on the way to rewriting history  -   as a chap called orwell  mentioned

currently thinking of The Producers hehe

on the plus side if we do Brexit the EU we will not be part of 1984

Mind you I don not know what we would be....mere incidentals and something for the big boys to wipe off their shoes

alun, was the word 'Racist' even spoken during the 40s ?

As any watched war factoreis on the Yesterday channel? The allies won the war not on the battle field but because we out produced the Germans. one of the programs give an interesting angle as to why the Germans invaded Russia

Judgeing by What Bercrow has said to day it was a Mistake us getting involved , In anyone can work that one out

American Industry contribution cannot be underestimated. It certainly saved us from defeat, invasion and possible conquest but Germany was defeated on the Eastern Front by the Russian winter, Russian stoicism, tenacity and the T34

"World on Fire" sounds like now really what with California being set alight, WW3 indeed Whisper

According to that bloke in the link, the cause of the Germans defeat was lack of oil.
And in Russia, Hitlers orders were not carried out with regard to where his main forces were positioned at the start.
Hitler wanted a rapid thrust south to grab the oilfields and cut off the Russians' supply and satisfy his own needs. That was his strategy.
But his generals, one in particular, thought that taking Moscow should be the priority and laid out his forces with that in mind.

Stalin thought the same as Hitler, which accounts for the spectacular early successes of the Germans in the north, with the Russian troops positioned to take on the Germans in the south.
When the German attack in the south finally came it failed to secure the oil, and the German invasion was lost from that point.

That's how I understood what he was saying.

Yep but he was wrong!

A war on two fronts m'dears- not such a good idea.  Napoleon was very good at it but didn't last either.

Mind you - the reich is still trying it on in the ukraine now  - oooops  !!

That was Hitler's plan, he had to take the oil in a short time and certainly before the winter set in.
But because of his general's actions, his resources were not best placed with that as the aim, and the strike on the oil fields failed.

A case of his generals playing tactics, while Hitler intended a game of logistics.
The oil was Hitler's target not Moscow.

He argues that Hitler knew he couldn't beat Stalin in a drawn out war, but if he took control of the Russian oil, without it the Russians  couldn't continue the war effectively.

What amazes me, is how quickly Hitler put the German economy back on it's feet when he was supposed to be mad.