Each day we go through a wide variety of comments left by our community members from all over the world. In our format 'Across the Airwaves', we take a look at some of the comments that really stood out to us and directly address them, allowing us to expand on our content in a way we were able to before. Thank you to our community, especially the TimeGhost Army members who make it possible for us to regularly release content. Hope you enjoy this episode, as always, don't forget to read our rules of conduct before commenting: community.timeghost.tv/t/rules-of-conduct/4518
What bothers me is it seems there was alot of unusual activity in the region up until the attack. I have no issue with what happened either way but it sounds like there is an implication at minimum of ineptitude....
I'd just like to know what wine Indy is drinking. I suspect a mellifluous Nappa Cabernet Sauvignon but would like to believe it's a big, ballsy Amarone (15% ABV) 😎😀😊
Guys, let's use common sense. What is the chance that Americans were REALLY surprised by the Japanese attack on PH? I think the chance is pretty slim. Americans wanted the pretext to enter the war. PH attack was the excellent reason. Besides they removed all carriers from the base so the attack de facto did very little. That's one thing. Second. Keep in mind that many documents related to WW2 are still classified as top secret. Yes, that many years have passed and some of the papers still have the red stamp "TOP SECRET" on them. For example Heinrich Himmler's autopsy documents, those papers are top secret until 2045. The bottom line is. We still don't know everything about WW2.
@@ryanthethunderbolt229 how many of those battleships were used for target practice? - and/or too old to used to anything than backup/or an expensive destroyer to guard other ships.
I would absolutely love to see a “History Doesn’t Happen in a Vacuum” series! Indy’s explanation on Pearl Harbor is exactly the type of conversation I’ve had countless times when someone brings that story up.
@@atmark666 USA also had plans to make war with the English, as well as the Soviets, as well as the Mexicans, and on and on and on. Plans are one thing, putting them into action is another.
When I was in college, I studied (of all things) Medieval Studies. This wasn't simply history, but art, literature, music, even medicine and science from the era. This sowed deep into me the notion that you can't know about history simply by looking at names and dates, battles and leaders. What I appreciate about this series (and your related endeavours) is that you don't talk about events in a vacuum, but rather bring a broader context to the events. A president or a dictator isn't thinking about their war or their power 130% of the time; instead, like most human beings, they have other cares as well, some of them related to their broader efforts and some of them "simple" household concerns. Thank you, again, for this context. In many ways, this series has helped put a better perspective on my parents' lives -- my father born in 1926, my mother in 1924.
Thank you for the kind words! We're very happy to see how much you appreciate our work, it truly makes it all worth it. Stay tuned, and thank you for being a fan!
I'd be interested to know what the question about the Maginot Line was between you and Indy and how it was definitely answered. Always good to see people willing to change opinions based on facts. Personally, I'd always allowed a little doubt about the "FDR let Pearl Harbor happen" to remain, but that Philippines bombers arguments is one I hadn't heard before and is quite convincing.
My take away on the Maginot Line series is that it should not be viewed a defensive line that was designed to stop an invasion but to slow it down long enough for the French reserves an army to be brought up. (One need only look at the Japanese defenses in the Pacific to see how effective those can be at slowing down, but not stopping, an invasion). The main reason it failed was due mainly to the poor leadership of the French generals
@@stopspammandm it sort of forces the international issue by making the Germans go into Belgium. I think if you're a French strategist of the inter war era, you're looking at WW1 and how you got bled dry and you're looking at the demographic realities, that you immediately realize that you probably won't have great chances of a prolonged fight with the Germans on your own... so you give Germany two options: stage histories largest and costliest siege of fortifications, or make it another world war by violating Belgium's guaranteed neutrality. Of course with hindsight we see this to be foolish thinking or wishful thinking maybe, but it's difficult for us to understand their motivations and reasoning so far removed from the time and technology.
@@420JackG You’re forgetting that the maginot line was from Belgium all the way down to Italy, but the defenses were stronger and more concentrated on the German border
@@420JackG further defences along the border with were planned, but building them along the direct border is what you do first, and not least because of the message it would have sent to the Belgians. There was some talk of funding Belgium to build defences, but that has other political dimensions too. Ditto the Ardennes - not bring considered good territory for attack, it wasn't in the first tranches of building, but then your natural strong point can become your weak point if everywhere else is strong. Part of the issue was funding - France was also trying to build new tanks, planes, ships, guns, and there was some 'value engineering' of the Maginot Line. And, noting history doesn't happen in a vaccum, the problematic politics of France in the 1930s plays a big role.
@@wbertie2604 The soil type on French-Belgian border did not permit construction of formidable fortifications identical to those on French-German border.
I would love to see Indy rebuke that neo-nazi Europa documentary that gets passed around in the comments from time to time. But perhaps it's not worth giving attention to.
@@ludaMerlin69 Ah. Not buying into neo-fascist pseudo-history makes me a soviet. Cool story bro. Why are you here? You obviously don't care about history, research, or scientific method, so why do you watch a series that you consider to be "soviet propaganda".
"History does not happen in a vacuum" as an episode? That would be genious! There are way too many who pick out individual events and twist them way beyond reason.
@@DaveSCameron should probably have written ingenious. A person is a genius. An idea can be ingenious.English is not in any way my first language. And my gadgets are set to correct Swedish.
I mean the Wake islands and other US territories were attacked as well between 7 and 10 of December (depending on the time zone) with different fleets. As well as Midway when Kido Butai was returning from Pearl. So technically FDR could use these attacks to wage war, without risking the Bombers in the Philippines or the Fleet in Pearl
Nope. Congress and the Public would not buy that play. It also does not pencil out for Tokyo. Yamamoto was motivated by a BOOK..."The Great Pacific War." It was reprinted -- and is still available on Amazon. But the folks at "World War Two" have not read it. BTW, FDR had MANY gambits designed to drive Tokyo nuts so as to initiate hostilities. The Flying Tigers and the oil embargo were but the few.
@@realrhetoric for the same reason that the Wake Island's commander Cunningham didn't order his planes to take off just before the Japanese attack and so all but 4 were destroyed. He didn't knew the attack on Pearl
@@ioannis1056 Well, if he didn't know of the attack on Pearl, and he didn't have scout planes up looking for potential attackers, yeah, understandable. I'd heard Douglas had plenty of advance notice, though. Of course, he made plenty of other errors, like not provisioning Corregidor, so it wouldn't be out of character for him just to FU.
@@realrhetoric Scout Planes were in the air. Anyways, also note that Brigadier General Sutherland (chief of stuff to General MacArthur) first learnt the attack of Pearl Harbor by radio broadcast! He later was ordered to attack Taiwan (most probable Japanese air base able to attack the Philippines). After a discussion, however, the bombers remained grounded. Then patrols were ordered (there was much fog) and after some other stuff, the Japanese came
@@thomasfsan First, let me say that I'm no fan of conspiracy theories in general. Just for one thing, they almost always accuse someone of being incompetent or even criminal... at the very least criminally negligent. The "FDR knew about Pearl Harbor" theory/myth is different. Let's pretend, for the moment, that they *did* know... just pretend. It's not a "conspiracy" because it involves the *correct* people making decisions which are entirely within their *LEGAL* authority to make. Thus, no conspiracy. Still pretending that they *did* know... they had a right to expect the patrols and defenses at Pearl Harbor to be able to deal with the threat... even if they knew that Pearl Harbor was a specific... and *immediate* risk. So, at this point, just leaving it as a *possibility* that they knew... Of course the enemy needs to know about deterrents in order for them to BE deterrents... but once the enemy has already made their decision, those deterrents simply become threats and TARGETS... problems for the enemy to solve or avoid. They are no longer deterrents. The time for deterrents and diplomacy is over. Indy's logic on deterrents may be stellar... it may be on a par with E=mc-squared... but that doesn't tell you how to change a flat tire... and is about that relevant to this particular theory. It's the wrong solution for this problem/myth/theory. I learned this theory about 40 years ago... so I may have forgotten parts of it, but here's what I remember... 1) We'd broken Japan's diplomatic codes... but NOT their military codes. 2) Thus, we (FDR, Marshall, etc) knew AN attack was coming. 3) We did *not* know when, where, or how that attack was coming. Now to put things in context... NOTHING like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had ever happened before. (Opinion... Taranto similar... but not the same.) Pearl *should* have been able to get their own defenses manned, and their planes in the air. Marshall and FDR had a reasonable right to expect competence from their field commanders and soldiers, and a reasonable right to expect the patrols around Pearl to detect an attack in time enough to do that... Washington *seriously* underestimated the Japanese abilities... which makes it even more credible that they would allow the attack to take place, and rely on the troops to defend themselves.
@@Nyet-Zdyes Actually, the USN AND RN had both cracked JN24 -- and all the way back to JN01 (1923) -- read Nave. JN25 had the exact same structure and scheme. They just needed more intercepts to get the last bits lined up. And then there is the code-within-a-code -- such as "AF." Those were the last items to ever be doped out -- and why every military keeps laying on code names for complex descriptors. The IJN DID NOT STAY OFF THE AIR during their sortie to PH. A storm screwed up Plan A. Hence, mere radio direction finding located the strike force. Japan had a HISTORY of attacking while negotiating. (Russia) Japan had a history of a total code book change over right before a super-strategic attack. (Russia, et. al) The book "The Great Pacific War" spelled out WHY Japan had to attack PH FIRST. It was published in 1925 -- and can be bought on Amazon right now. (A reprint.) Yamamoto used the EXACT same invasion beaches laid out in that pre-war fiction. (!!!) Short piled up his aircraft onto the middle of his runways -- per THIS BOOK. Yeah, Short and Kimmel had read it, too. THEY were using the book's ideas, too. PH had been attacked by Adm King just months earlier -- in a war game. The USN had gamed an air assault against PH for a DECADE already. FDR had sent the latest radar and B-17s to Pearl precisely so that they would discover the IJN fleet at the last second. The B-17s were a WEEK LATE. Their late arrival screwed up the radar report. The officers involved were canned. They had taken their own sweet time relocating from Washington State to Hickam. Your fundamentals are CORRECT. Indy is way, way, way off base. FDR expected that Kimmel would utterly blunt the IJN attack -- but he didn't -- even though Washington was sending everything his way. The American public was outraged -- even without knowing that Pearl had been hard hit. ANY attack would've 'triggered' Americans.
Wow, Indy... I watch your series since 2016 (and I have binge-watched The Great War earlier material) and I'm really impressed by your take down of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy. It's not about the power of argument, but the skill with which you have adapted the knowledge to the form of a short video. That should stick. I certainly would like to see more of it. Thank you!
Spartacus Olsen, a historically literate intellect willing to publicly acknowledge he could be wrong, and if he discovers he is, will publicly change his mind. That is a rather rare commodity in this day and age. I salute you sir.
Nevertheless, if Vinny's data is correct, then let's switch the German air defense expense (40% -> 3%) and armored vehicle expense (3% -> 40 %), then it's quite obvious that German could increase their Panzerkampfwagen VI production from 1,300 to 13,000, also Panzerkampfwagen V production from 6,000 to 60,000. Then would Soviet's 100,000 T-34 overrun Heer? I don't think so, at least impossible to do so before 1946. German would be defeated by the atomic bombs, and Japan would at least survive the year 1946 and 1947. Is this decisive according to your standard? I don't know. But I won't say it is not important.
@@AkiraNakamoto I've red similar assumptions regarding aircraft production and diversion of resources to Flak guns. However, Spartacus' point was that Germany didn't loose because they ran out of tanks and planes. They ran out of land, trained soldiers/pilots and crucially, crude oil and refined petroleum products. Germany produced far more aircraft, especially fighters in 1944 than in any other year. Yes, production statistics at this point were very unreliable, (as well as inflating numbers by classifying refurbished planes as "new" for example and raiding the spare part supply closet bare) but it was clear that both the German and Japanese air forces were beaten more by lack of capable pilots and fuel. As the Allies advanced across Germany, they found airfields and factories packed with completed and capable airframes as well as various armored vehicles. But again, they were in the wrong place, the transportation network was wrecked and there was no fuel. The one Allied air campaign that really did hurt Germany was the synthetic oil campaign, which only really got going in mid 1944. It was effective because it was conducted mostly during daylight and achieved enough accuracy to utterly wreck German fuel production. A secondary impact was on the quality of German munitions. It did seriously impact the ability to conduct operations on the ground, turning the vaunted German heavy tanks into virtually useless pillboxes. Area bombing at night would have required several more years and vast multiples of the available bombers to achieve the same effect on German bottlenecks, if it could ever even achieve it. Also, Flak didn't shoot down that many Allied aircraft, but it did severely disrupt bombing accuracy.
@@DBMirageIX Romania's Ploiesti petroleum supply is working even today. Hitler didn't have fuel problem until Soviet's Jassy-Kishinev Offensive launched on August 20, 1944. If Hitler had 60,000 Panzerkampfwagen V, there was no chance that Soviet's Jassy-Kishinev Offensive could take over Romania and ended Hitler's fuel suppy.
You should do "history doesn't happen in a vacuum" but only if it examines myths of the same caliber as the FDR Pearl Harbor myth. Its a primo myth. edit: and given the replies, somehow a lot of people are *STILL* persuaded of it even after watching this video which I feel disproves the theory.
The first moon landing is now history - having happened more than 50 years ago. There are plenty of tin foil hat myths about that - and explaining it from a "doesn't happen in a vacuum" could go a long way to dispelling the myths.
As a historian (whose name that I cannot remember or the book I read from) once wrote, "Pearl Harbor - where all the conspiracy theories go to die", or words similar. Sampling of some of the "theories" have read about: Yep - FDR knew about that Pearl Harbor was going to attacked and said nothing. Winston Churchill knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor and said nothing. Joseph Stalin knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor and said nothing. The American ambassador to Japan was told about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor and did nothing. General MacArthur US Army Commander in The Philippines) knew about the impending attack and that is why he had his entire air-fleet parked out in the open. General Walter Short, US Army Commander in Hawaii, knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor and was told by FDR to place his aircraft like he did so that they could be destroyed better. Admiral Husband Kimmel knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor and was ordered by FDR to place the entire fleet in the harbor and to ensure maximum personnel were on shore leave. Everyone expected war with Japan eventually, not very many people expected Pearl Harbor would be attacked because of the distances and most likely route to be taken. Most people figured that a Japanese fleet would be spotted in plenty of time should they be fool-hardy enough to try something that dumb. Just about everyone expected either: Wake Island, The Philippines, or Guam to be the likely targets. If an attack were to be made on Pearl Harbor, the most likely avenues of approach was thought to have been from the Marshall Islands.
Physicist here in an absolute vacuum there is no change and therefore no time, therefore there is no history in a vacuum as the literal definition of a absolute vacuum is a space where there is nothing. Nothing in the universe however is an absolute vacuum unless you count the edge of space, as it breaks a law of thermodynamics, entropy will cause particles and heat to enter the vacuum and because you can't have a self sustaining system it is impossible to have the space with nothing, if you ever did theoretically have a space like this extremely small particles will enter the vacuum, you can however get relatively close.
In addition to saying history cannot be studied in a vacuum, we should remember that history has to ignore hindsight when reviewing events. First of all, the movement of the fleet into areas of concern has been policy since the founding of navies. This is how you project power in a region where you are concerned that things may be going the wrong way. The worry for most military tacticians was that Japan would attack the Philippines. That is why the fleet was moved to Pearl Harbor from San Diego. It would shorten the response time of the fleet to the area that we expected trouble from Japan. If they wanted to bait Japan with the fleet, they would have sent it to Manila not Pearl. Besides, there was no way a major fleet could sail that far across the Pacific without being seen. Well the Japanese proved the error or that. Many use as a justification for the setup of the fleet that the day of the battleship was over anyway so we sacrifice a few older ships and get the Japanese to take the bait. This doesn’t take into account the naval doctrines prevalent at the time. No nation, not even the Japanese felt that the day of the battleship was over. Otherwise they wouldn’t have built the two super battleships Musashi and Yamato. The US was building new fast battleships as were the Italians and Germans. The lessons from the battle of Taranto were not heeded by many with the exception of the Japanese. That question was decided by the Pearl Harbor attack and that was why they didn’t push carriers to the front of the line till this happened. Finally, Roosevelt may have wanted war, but his real concern was the Germans. The Japanese were badly underestimated by most of the military. The pact between Japan and Germany was a defensive pact. They were pledged to join together if either of them was attacked. Note that if either country attacked someone else, there was no obligation to join in. Otherwise Japan would have gone to war with the USSR when Germany invaded. Hitler did Roosevelt a huge favor by declaring war when he was in no obligation to do so. Roosevelt didn’t look a gift horse in the mouth as if Hitler hadn’t done so, he would have had a hard time convincing the people to go to war with Germany when we were already fighting Japan. No it wasn’t bait to get Japan to attack. the ones he would have wanted to fight were in Europe, not the Pacific. He got more than he really wanted.
agree with everything you said except the Hitler part. Hitler thought that by 1941 they were at war with the US anyway (what with the lend-lease and all), and the actual declaration was more of a formality. Heck, German and American naval engagements were happening since early 1941. What also cemented his decision was his egregious overestimation of Japanese capabilities.
@@darthcalanil5333 Right. Hitler was more afraid of Japan deciding not to attack the US at this point in the war. So he told them he would declare war too if they attacked. Unfortunately for Adolf the Japanese didn't tie up the Americans as much as he hoped.
Your argument that Roosevelt was the direct kind of guy who would put the Pacific Fleet in Manila if he was trying to bait the Japanese does not sit well with your assertion that he was sitting back waiting for somebody to give him a war. He was already shooting at the Germans in the Atlantic. He needed an actual formalization which the American public would buy. He was the exact opposite of a "direct kind of guy". He was pushing every obtuse button he could find trying to get a bite from either the Japanese or the Germans that he could sell.
The day of the battleship was not over, rather the dominance of the battleship was. And raising and repairing the U.S. battleship fleet sunk in harbor would have been impossible in the Phillippines during ww2 but not in Hawaii as was planned.
The effectiveness of the Allied bombing effort is one of those very interesting questions historically because its efficacy can really depend on the criteria you set. If we approach the question with the mindset of the 1930s / 40s and the dominant ideas of Douhet and that strategic bombing could win the war alone, especially by "breaking" the population, I think we can all agree that that didn't happen. I present this because this was the argument that was largely used by Harris for much of the war, and it was the impetus for much of the bombing. No country which was bombed surrendered because their population's morale broke, and while we could have a discussion about the atomic bombings, it would be more interesting to have that discussion (as I'm sure it will happen endless times) closer to those events. However I don't think we can dismiss the efficacy of Allied bombing because it didn't achieve its stated goals. As the comment to which Spartacus replied stated, there were definitely tangential effects on Germany based on the bombing. The effort required in defending against the bombing, the effort in rebuilding factories, or in scattering production facilities and transporting more goods on a wider scale meant that even when Germany was making up the numbers, it was still being hampered. In my mind however the entire question is somewhat moot on this point, because the moment the war became a war of attrition (I would argue this would be after the Fall of France at the earliest and following the failure of Barbarossa at the latest), there was no way they would win. Assuming they can build more tanks and planes, they would still not have enough manpower and fuel to actually keep all of that going. Whatever the Allies do here by bombing production and workers ultimately just translates into ending the war faster, since Germany only has finite resources and is thus forced to expend them faster. The one aspect of strategic bombing which I don't believe is discussed enough however is the impact it has on a post-war country. I don't mean on their economy, but on the psychology of the civilians who were bombed. All the populations who were bombed during the war endured the bombing and hardship in the hope of victory or at least in the hope that it would end. For those who were on the victorious side, the bombing was a test of endurance and something which they thought ultimately made them stronger (spirit of the Blitz etc). For the vanquished, especially since the bombing of German and Japanese cities was far more destructive and far more wholesale across the country, I believe a case could be made that it helped to cement their loss and to deter them from future aggression, knowing what they had gone through and that it was ultimately for nothing. This is why it has been important in modern total war for a populace to know they have been defeated. Had the First World War continued into 1919 as various Allied leaders wanted it to, the German people would have known they were defeated when they saw the Allies marching through their cities. However, they did not experience this, and thus so much of the falsehood around their WWI could be made believeable. In WWII, when a German or Japanese civilian looked around his or her destroyed city, saw the occupying forces there, and felt the pains of loss, hunger, defeat, and occupation, then there was no way they would not know they were defeated. Anyway all that to say, history in a vacuum sounds like a great series if you have a historian in a vacuum cleaner or similar imagery.
40% spent on Germany's air defence vs 3% on mobile armament tells its own story. WW2 turned from an offensive war of Blitzkrieg land grabs to a defensive campaign by 1942, and this would only be compounded as the war progressed. Holding territory from Calais to North Africa requires exponentially more manpower and arms than taking it.
@@borderlands6606 That latter point is something of a recurring theme with empires across the globe throughout history, perhaps the best example in regards to European history being the Roman Empire itself.
I just wonder what effect could have had 500-700 more bombers with the new short wawe RADARs sooner in 1942 , when the allies lost many million tons of merchant ships.
@@r.ladaria135 Sinking U-boats (or at least scaring them off and thus saving the convoys) would definitely do a LOT more than burning civilians to death in their sleep 👀
Regarding Spartacus'(s?) comments on the bombing campaign: From what I've absorbed on that particular topic, the bombing of industry was largely a failure strategically, and area bombing had limited if any success as well. However, in early 44 the american bombing effort changed tactics from a general strategy of 'crippling the german war economy' to a very specific goal of 'force the luftwaffe to engage and destroy them'. This was because the planning of Overlord required allied air supremacy over the invasion corridor, and to do that the german air force had to be crippled. In that role, the bombing campaign was incredibly successful, as evidenced by the attrition rates in early 44(particularly during Operation Argument.) The book Big Week by James Holland has a superb account of this change in strategy, and the internal 8th Air Force documents at the time corroborate the priority change. Effectively, the strategic bombing of ground targets on its own was never very effective, either in Europe or in Asia, but was successful in forcing the enemy to waste pilots intercepting them at a rate they could not replenish. As an aside I'd also like to thank Indy for so thoroughly crushing that dumb talking point about FDR, it's annoyingly prevalent.
Leveling the cities of your enemy in a major war is a significant deterrent against future wars. I doesn't matter much if the current war is made slightly shorter or slightly longer. We can see the echo of this principle in the contemporary concept of "Strategic Warfare", and we can see the practice of this concept in the Second World War by the manner in which cities were being destroyed well after the decision point of the war had passed, and in some controversial cases, in places which were obviously intended to be seen at close quarters by potential future enemies. If the "mushroom cloud" had not become the iconic image of terror in the post-war world, we were still being educated about the "fire storm" which would have sufficed for the purpose...
@@gregorywade1559 I think it's hard to argue FDR wasn't anticipating joining the war, and I agree that he was trying to lay the groundwork for American involvement. But as Indy said, there's no way that FDR had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor specifically. The literature is clear on this, and the timeline doesn't work.
@@flipthebird1262 I don't disagree, but without documentation in front of me that sound like ex-post-facto justification of things that weren't planned with that much nuance. If you can show me something saying the idea of something like Dresden was to deter a future war, I'm willing to buy it, but it strikes me as more likely driven by revenge. There is also the fact that they have all this equipment ready to go, just leaving it sitting around waiting for the germans to surrender just isn't going to happen even if the war is effectively over at that point.
Early war strategic bombing didn't have much impact, but as tactics and technology was refined, factories were able to be hit at greater numbers. The strategic bombing campaign on Japan was especially effective.
@@Tech_Renegade You don't need such specific words, and you're unlikely to find them written down. I agree that to some extent the strategic bombing campaign evolved and took on a life and momentum of its own. At some point the justification for targeting civilian infrastructure has to be justified by the understanding that in a total war they are supporting an enemy government in wartime, and in doing so they have become legitimate targets. Beyond that, the technology and methodology which evolved in tandem, was trending towards the ideal of the "fire storm", which was essentially the ability to obliterate an entire city at will using a fleet of bombers. The concept had been refined and the ability to complete the task within a single day was clinically demonstrated at Dresden, a city which had been previously untouched, and was known to be soon occupied by the Red Army. When considered in this way, the arrival of the atom bombs was really just a more efficient refinement of this demonstrated "city killing" ability. There is no question that the capability being demonstrated here was intended to deter future wars, just as any other demonstration of military competence would be, and the targeting of civilians was with equal certainty intended to remind civilians of the future, that any support of militarism would carry a price for themselves.
"FDR Knew about Pearl Harbor?!", My understanding he was told by his intelligence circle that there was a high possibility of a Japanese attack, just no-one knew where, Philippines? Midway? Pearl Harbour? Guam? It is the sort of thing where you sensibly tell your intelligence staff, "OK, we will start preparations, but can't do much until you find out more".
The Japanese had caught the Russian Navy by surprise in port in that war they had in, perhaps 1905. So they had a history of treacherous behavior. The subject of a devastating attack on Peal Harbor had been the subject of pop culture entertainment like comic books and pulp type "Dime novels" in Japan for years. So it should have been anticipated to some degree.
@@celticman1909 Flying saucers attacking NYC and DC with death rays and a zombie apocalypse have also been part of pop culture for decades. I doubt the military has been preparing for them.
@@katey1dog 1. Everything is "aging". Don't denigrate the ships. They were what was available by the decision of Congress and the President. The battleships were moored there due to constraints of the harbor.
From various docos about Duško Popov, the Japanese were very interested in the British attack on Taranto. This got back to the Brits, and Popov was sent to warn the U.S.. Unfortunately, Hoover didn't trust him and seemed to never pass the information on. Logically, if the Japanese were interested in how the Brits crippled the Italian fleet in a harbour, there was only one logical place for the Japanese attack. Then there were all the blunders by the U.S.
I was going to do a paper on pearl harbor back in highschool. My teacher was tired of those types of papers so she made me do one on this topic. I've been hoping you guys would address this and glad you did!
Wow, this time you really picked out some comments that needed some answering. Well Done! For the first question I feel like it is almost more interesting (and less ridiculous) to look at the American war preparations which clearly showed that the government wanted to go to war and as you said the B-17 and oil embargo to put a lot of pressure on Japan and the support of Britain was quite an antagonizing act against Germany. The attack on Pearl Harbor was definitely a surprise but I dont think the Japanese attacking somewhere (or the Germans starting to torpedo more American ships) was a surprise to the government. And it shows that Roosevelt and his crew were actually quite smart to maximize chances of the US getting drawn into the war without actually attacking someone (officially) first. And being surprised that your enemy manages to somewhat secretly send their fleet across 6500km to attack you in 1941 really is not that surprising.
You literally missed the part where the US Navy (FDR was formerly in charge of it) began active combat operations in mid 1941 and began to attack uboats as a part of convey escorts. The 2 US Navy destroyers were torpedoed while actively attacking uboats.
The American commanders in the Pacific anticipated Japanese hostililty and made preparations to combat it as much as they could. I will also not ignore the racism and underestimating Japanese military strength that the West felt toward the Japanese at that time. It cost the European and American nations dearly with this mindset at the beginning of the Pacific War.
@Rob I did not say such thing. Roosevelt‘s government could not actively go to war. Neither the public nor congress supported it. Mid 1941 for the first time even a slight majority of Americans supported intervening somehow
With regards to civilian bombing in 1942 specifically: I think that one other important criteria to evaluate the bombings under is their effects on Allied morale. As we've seen in recent weeks, the Axis forces seem to be pushing across Russia with terrifying speed, the Japanese are running amok in the Pacific (with one notable exception Midway through the year), submarines are terrorizing the Atlantic, and in North Africa the British are losing even when they have superior numbers. For the British to be able to say "look, we can smash German cities and they can't stop us" may have had enormous importance in keeping up civilian (and for that matter, military) belief in eventual victory. It is however a very difficult thing to quantify.
That may be true. However, imagine if you had been sending those bombers across the Atlantic to sink U-Boats and save lives, or bombing all the harbor installations where the Kriegsmarine was hiding to attack Russia bound convoys, or if you had somehow been able to deploy them in North Africa to relentlessly bomb the DAK into the ground ? You might have been able to show many more victories to your people and things could have gone on differently, while the enemy would STILL have to spend the money and effort on replacing their losses. Bombing civilians usually has them siding with their current leader, regardless of who they are. The best way to deal with an enemy is to deal with his infrastructure and his armies. If the Allies had done so, maybe, just maybe, this war would have been won a bit sooner. But that's just speculation.
@@Damorann The allies did take care of the enemy armies and infrastructure but in the sense that once the armies were destroyed, the civilian infrastructure was the last thing to destroy (after military and industrial buildings).
I had a relative (great uncle) who was a bomber pilot in ww2. His plane was shot down over Magdeberg Germany in July 1944. Only one person survived, the co pilot. He was in the 392nd bomber group, 579th heavy bomber squadron. These videos provide an insight to that time and are much appreciated.
Indy talking about “History doesn’t happen in a vacuum” and Sparty talking about the effects of strat bombing reminds me of an argument my History professor had with a student. The students read an alt history book about WWII and made wild assumptions based on them. The professor responded with a very apt phrase I’d like to quote; “History makes good Alternative History, but Alternative history doesn’t make good History.”
The US spelling is harbor - the other version is not the British version, it's the 'not US' version - it's the US that changed the spellings of many words (color/harbor/flavor/labor etc) - it's mainly due to Webster, the dictionary guy. There is a bullshit idea going round that spelling hadn't been codified at that time...but it's BS - Webster wanted to simplify the language. Anyway - Pearl Harbor is spelled Pearl Harbor in the UK, not Pearl Harbour. Anyone using harbour is just being a dick. It's a name and you don't change a name (proper noun) to a different spelling just because your local spelling of a geographical feature is different.
Excellent concept in addition to your actual content, which is superb. Comment sections (in TH-cam in general) are such a cesspool of misinformation that I think it's a great idea to address some of them - both good and bad - in dedicated videos.
my respect for these great historians grows more and more after each episode like this. The poignant and succinct way in which questions are respected and answered is fabulous. Many of the debates we had in history class years ago are answered very well here. Kudos to you chaps.
"History doesn't Happen in a Vacuum" would also be great for handling so many of the 'what if' myths too. Like 'what if' Longstreet went around 'to the right' at Gettysburg...easily dispelled by just walking the ground. There is no way to launch a supported attack to the south of the round tops...and the whole, 'redeploy after the first day' idea is shown to be similarly daft as an examination of the road network and the Army of Northern Virginia's supply situation makes clear. Fully agree with Indy here about Pearl Harbor. It was immaterial whether FDR knew or did not know that an attack would come at Pearl. The wise man places his forces in positions where he believes them to be both protected and capable of hitting the enemy hard. Prior to 7th December, the location of the bombers and the fleet were generally deemed to be safe places. That they were not safe does not imply that those who put them there INTENDED them to be in danger. It just means that mistakes were made. The fleet and bombers were forward deployed to add leverage to the American negotiations to end the war in China. Arguing that they were intentionally allowed to be destroyed to somehow ensure that the US would win is just...silly reasoning. In order to win the war you would allow the weapons you believe will win you the war will be destroyed so that you can win the war? It's daft.
I've always found that armchair argument very strange. Hitler was talking about the inevitability of invading the USSR for 20 years. There's no universe anywhere where he wouldn't.
He opened another front in the war. It is not that he should not have invaded the USSR. Germany should have dealt with England first. Germany started a fight with the world's largest navy, the largest army and his allies started one with the country with the largest potential economy at the time.
This was a really good episode! Having a more detailed discussion to only a couple questions was more like listening to a history professor speak freely about their interests
Excellent and intelligent video! I really love that you take on these "real but inconvenient facts" deniers directly. As a young history undergrad (a million years ago) I wrote an essay speculating about the possibility that FDR knew about the attack and allowed it to happen. However, further digging, including a visit to Pearl Harbour and books by Gordon Prange straightened me out. What is lamentable, both in the study of history or attitudes towards current political or social events is the refusal of some people to accept clear facts that contradict their pet beliefs. Again, outstanding!
Gordon Prange's info on radio silence is outdated now. See George Victor's The PH Myth please. With the release of FOIA docs in 1979 we know the US was able to read the IJN messages.
Actually Finnish Air Force attacked Pearl Harbor. That happened because gigantic herring ate Fighter Squadron 22 and vomited it out after drifting from Baltic Sea to Pacific Ocean. Those fighter planes are heavy. Then without being able to contact their superiors the decided to attack obviously Soviet naval base. Low sun had yellowish color and glare forced pilots to squint their eyes so they looked Japanese.
@@Snp2024 No mention of that. Japanese took the blame because it worked well with their plans and do you think there wouldn't be world-wide panic if existence of giant herrings capable of eating whole fighter squadron bases would be made public. Same missing squadron also attacked Tokyo in following April and this time United States took the blame as it worked with their plans. Jimmy Doolittle was drunk sailor (in sailor standards) who was labeled as mastermind of that move.
Two excellent responses to two exceptional questions. Sparty's response to the question of strategic bombing was especially important since it shows that he is a serious historian, willing to listen to counterarguments, assess the facts in chronological context, and do in depth analysis to test his own theories. This is a crucial part of the War Against Humanity series since we are seeing today an unprecedented rise in antisemitism worldwide coupled with an increase in Holocaust denial. By presenting the facts in context and not "history in a vacuum" with critical analysis, War Against Humanity provides one of the best means for defeating the Holocaust deniers. Thanks again for your excellent work.
This was remarkable!!! "If I want something to be true, then it is possible, and not that difficult, to reverse-engineer a timeline of events that supports that preconceived conclusion." This sums up so much of the poison in today's politics and news. I really hope our nation can last in a world where so much misinformation spreads like wildfire on the internet. Let's always keep our ears open and our minds critical of various viewpoints. We must keep our minds open. 🤠
Good episode. Also to be noted with regard to FDR and the Pearl Harbor attack is that FDR was a Navy man through and through. There is no reason to think that he would have knowingly let the Pacific Fleet get destroyed at anchor. Also, Gordon Prange, who spent his whole adult life studying the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and interviewed hundreds of Americans and Japanese with knowledge of the event, found no evidence that FDR had foreknowledge of the attack, much less that he let it happen.
Very good episode! Indy, your treatment of Pearl Harbor was both informative and amusing. Of course, the thing is, if Roosevelt had known about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor, he also would have known about the impending attack on the Philippines and, being the James Bond villain level evil genius that he was, he would have let both attacks happen, right? Spartacus, I am very impressed with your acknowledging that your opinion about the effectiveness of strategic bombing is just that, a scholarly, informed opinion, subject to argument and revision. So many scholars nowadays regard themselves as holders of absolute and undeniable truth. I am curious though, I know that German war production increased through most of the war despite the bombing, but has anyone ever attempted to analyze how much *more* it might have increased had there been no bombing at all?
Great reply Indi! I have bought the possibility that the Japanese code had been broken earlier than it has been admitted. Remember that for security reasons, the story about the breaking of the code surfaced decades after the end of the war. However, you are right that knowledge about the attack on Pearl Harbour (and the Philippines,) could have been information used to an advantage, and the attack could have still been used as a "causus belli". The main point is that knowing about the attack wouldn't have prevented it, it would have only reduced its damage.
I love those videos - thank you very much. And the "History does'nt happen in a vacuum"-Series? Sounds fascinating! Not just because of the abbreviation Hdhiv or Hdnhiav.
"If in the course of my continued research, and the exposure of the chronology, I am shown to be wrong, I will change my opinion." Damn, Spartacus! What a rare and honest attitude. I wish everyone was that honest. We might learn something from each other. Kudos to you, sir.
The carrier argument always amuses me. They do realize that it was the lack of battleships following the attack on Pearl Harbor that led to the US navy using carriers, and realizing that they were actually quite useful? Before ww2, carriers were little more than a military novelty
5:41 Please be mindful of the WWI generals who sent their soldiers in winter into the mountains without proper winter equipment. I'm not naming names, but they exist.
In WWI, lots of dumb things were done. There was this one episode where French soldiers dressed in RED trousers (i.e. their uniform) and were sent onto the battle field. 90,000 of these guys lay dead after the battle - many on account of their conspicuous trousers.
I just want to say that I have immense respect for the both of you. Both of your answers to the comments posed in this episode are superb, and I appreciate both your answers. Especially in the case of Spartacus, as it's very rare to find someone who so readily admits the possibility of their being mistaken while also holding firmly to their beliefs by way of factual evidence. Well done as always, all of you.
Roosevelt could have fended off the attack at Pearl Harbor and Americans at home would’ve just as outraged and even more eager to fight. Hence, he didn’t know about it. One mans opinion.
Yep had he known he could have laid a trap. Sailed the fleet and put them in position to sink the Japanese fleet. Then sail straight for the Japanese home islands and begin the shelling.
@@shawnr771 Except for the fact that the Americans only had two carriers in the pacific at the time, the American torpedoes did not work, and the divebomber crews were inexperienced at the time.
I want to hear about the theory that Stalin was preparing for a preemptive offensive against Germany when the Germans invaded. I've heard a good amount about it, but no where near enough to believe it.
Hitler's intentions towards the USSR were no secret to anyone. It's literally in his book that was selling everywhere. So Stalin knew that a German attack is probably coming. The Soviets were equally an expansionist regime. They invaded numerous countries from Finland to Romania, and they too were intending to expand their sphere of influence into central Europe. War was inevitable, but the question was WHEN. The soviets rather accurately estimated (probably through their spies) that Germany won't be ready for an invasion until 1942 at the earliest. I say accurately because the german rearmament plan and the generals themselves were arguing with Hitler in1939 that the Wehrmacht won't be ready for war until 1942. Moreover, Stalin thought that Germany will not attack until they finish the war with the UK. On the Soviet side, they too were in the middle of rearmament and mobilisation, especially after the purges, so they too were not ready. I'm unsure about a soviet preemptive strike. The evidence suggests that both nations were priming for a war of aggression regardless, and the germans happened to prepared faster (thanks to the conquests of Austria, Czechoslovakia and France).
@@CK-nh7sv I just said that. Having the intention for war is one thing, and being prepared for one is another. The soviets were clearly not prepared as they were caught in the middle of their huge reorganisation and rearmament of the army.
PLEASE please PLEASE please PLEASEEEEE do a series on how history is not a vacuum!!!! Your presentation style, calm and factually, is exactly what is needed today. It's also palatable to those who disagree. I made a post on my Facebook asking people to watch this video before you had even finished your explanation! I've had this "FDR was eViL" conversation so many times with young people in conservative settings- uhg. Combatting conspiracy, is something that nobody really does- and ya'll would be SO GOOD AT IT. Please, spread your rationality and sense. It is in such desperate short supply.
A few thoughts: 1. I've seen a number of analysts say that the western Allies' strategic bombing against Germany was a success - not because it destroyed civilian morale or destroyed production capacity - but because it kept the Luftwaffe over Germany and not over the battlefields, thus giving the Western Allies (and the Russians) air superiority over the battlefields (e.g., the famous "only two Luftwaffe fighters over Normandy on D-Day" thing). These analyses credit the disappearance of the Luftwaffe over the battlefields as having shortened the war by at least a year. Your thoughts please. 2. A number of comments to this video say in effect "well Roosevelt and the top brass knew something was coming but they didn't know where" and imply that not much was done to warn Pearl Harbor and the Philippines. I believe that there were a number of warnings, but they were ignored by the commanders at Pearl, the Philippines, etc. For example, there was the message sent to Admiral Kimmel and General Short in late November warning of an impending attack "somewhere". Since their combined staffs decided that some ridiculous number of planes and ships would have been needed to detect an incoming attack, Kimmel and Short basically did nothing. Congressional hearings after the war suggested that sufficiently effective early warning systems could have been established with the resources available. They wouldn't have been perfect and its possible the Japanese could have still snuck through, but it was judged that such early warning efforts were likely to have detected the incoming attack with enough time to get ships at battle stations, get planes in the air, etc. As for the Philippines, your own episodes have shown that McArthur's air commander(s) just simply didn't do anything. Ignored the warnings. Refused to establish any sort of combat air patrol. Refused to establish any long range search, etc. Basically handed the Japanese carte blanche to destroy most of the planes on the ground. Again, I would appreciate your thoughts. Of course, then there's the question of whether the B-17s in the Philippines would have been effective. General Marshal may have loved them, but high altitude level bombers were pretty ineffective against ships underway, such as at Midway.
Not to mention the argument of carriers being held back because of their importance is also ripe with hindsight. Carriers for the US became the default core of the navy because it was arguably all we had left. Before Pearl, carriers were only a part of the battle line, and their post-Pearl importance would have been only a practicing theory before the "main force" was lying on the bottom of its anchorage.
It wasn't even part of the battle line, it was an auxiliary force. Even Yamamoto thought that way - the Pearl Harbor attack was just an elaborate and expanded version of the traditional Japanese strategy of using aircraft, submarines, torpedo boats, and any other available forces to whittle down the enemy battle fleet so the Japanese would have a numerical advantage when the decisive battleship slugging match finally happened.
Whether FDR knows it or not, the fact Japan screwed up their diplomacy made them the enemy in this scenario. A textbook case of "not disturbing your enemy that made a mistake". And to hit home how much of a screw up Pearl Harbor is, Hideki Tojo privately celebrated the failure because it means the blame will now fall squarely on the IJN...
"Japan screwed up their diplomacy" Completely wrong. Elements in the Japanese government were trying in good faith to negotiate with the United States but the FDR administration refused every opportunity. They backed Japan into a corner
@@airborneace they 'backed japan into a corner" only because they refused supplies and materials that would have allowed japan to continue to prosecute their war in asia.
@@TheDancingHyena look at what the US did to the Philippines and tell me again with a straight face that we suddenly had moral qualms about atrocities in Asia
@@airborneace it’s not so much about moral qualms as it is about the fact japan was waging a brutal war of aggression against a friendly Asian nation to the US and openly challenging US and European interests in the pacific, also the Phillipines were about to be given independence in 1944, but thanks to the oh so kind Japanese invasion which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Phillipine civilians, they had to wait until 1946 to get independence
@@airborneace The Japanese government had the long term plan of removing all Western presence in South East Asia and the Pacific under the co-prosperity sphere even if it may have interested them to temporarily leave certain countries at peace (such as the USSR) but their goal was a regional empire under Japanese subjugation. They were most certainly not negotiating in good faith, they saw the US as a thorn to be removed from the area just as much as Britain, France and the Netherlands, and it was just a question of time. The US's refusal to be duped just sped up the time in which they thought they would deal have to deal with it. Certainly they would have liked the US to have continued to buy their story for long enough to take out the other countries and empires in the region in order to later pick of the US territories in detail.
Woah, this format feels so different from the normal week-to-week episodes, which mainly are listing facts. Here opinions are discussed in regard to a big picture. I really like this, a truly fresh breeze into a suffocating ww2 atmosphere.
@@WorldWarTwo you're very welcome! Btw, are you going to cover the famine in Vietnam caused by the Japanese? As you see, I'm 2 years behind the "current" events, and at the speed of 1 vid per day I can only hope to catch up before V-day. Since the Vietnamese starvation period that killed 2 million+ people began Oct44, there's a high chance I'll miss the opportunity to request for it.
Cheers for adressing the thesis. I think Douglas Horne's book "deception intrigue and the road to war" makes a case that would require a more serious rebuttal than the one made here (there's an article I read somewhere that sums his stance up brlliantly) and there are different alternative explanations for leaving the b 17s in the Philippines, like not wanting to reveal American knowledge of Japanese codes. Furthermore when evaluating such a move, cynical as it was (if it played out the way Horne suggests) we might still come to the conclusion that it was the only politically viable way to bring his isolationist public around to entering a just and necessary conflict....
If the forces on Hawaii and the Philippines had been prepared for the Japanese attack, if the ships had left the harbor and the Japanese planes had been met in the air by American planes and turned back, if the raid on Pearl Harbor had been a Japanese disaster, it would still have resulted in America declaring war on Japan.
Without the casualties, bringing an isolationist public opinion in favor of war for remote colonies (the US national territory began then in California, Hawaii was a territory, as was Alaska, a lot of people don't even know the USA controlled Philippines for half a century even) would have been quite complicated. You need martyrs in order to make the need for war clear to the masses, like in 9-11.
@@LuisAldamiz the isolationiat period was essentially half a century long, but the USA still managed to get embroiled in the Spanish American war with a much smaller trigger.
@@wbertie2604 - It was a very similar case: US troops "murdered" by the evil other (a very clear case of self-attack but transformed by the monopolist media into a war-triggering scandal).
@@wbertie2604 That was somewhat different. US policy was not tolerant of European powers mucking about in the Americas. It was easier to get public opinion on board to fight the Spanish Empire.
Building bombers costs resources and manpower. Building bombs costs resources and manpower. Fuiling and maintaining the bombers costs resources. Shot down bombers did also cost resources and human lives. No one disagrees, that strategic bombing has some kind of effect. But the more important question is: Was it worth the spend resources? Or would it have been better to let the Wehrmacht have their meager oil-rations and instead hit them with the now available resources somewhere where it did hurt them more?
@@Translucent73 i would love to see your justification of that statement. Every history i have read focusses on the strategic, tactical and training impact of fuel shortages from 1943 onwards. And the whole of German strategy in 1942 was centred around oil. Plus you have Speer’s testimony (fwiiw).
@@Translucent73 Germany may have had more oil then many think, but there was not enough transport capacity to bring in to the front. So the german army had an oil problem. Fall Blau (the attack on the Soviet Union in 1943) stalled at mulitple points because they could not get enough fuel to the tanks. And had to halt whole Panzer armies.
@@bastisonnenkind German transport to the eastern front was largely by rail which used much less oil per supply type transported than trucking. 1943 was Germany's largest fuel producing year to fuel Germany's largest vehicle production year. German supply problems at the Battle of Kursk was due to tactical supply cutting and air bombardments of German supply lines by the Soviets, and certainly not because the German army had little fuel stockpiled at rear depots in preparation for the offensive which you seem to imply.
Please do History Doesn't Happen In a Vacuum. One of your best videos on this channel based on the PH answer alone, and both answers were equally phenomenal. As someone with professional experience in history, I deeply enjoy seeing the crew directly engage with popularly debated points that don't hold up to professional scrutiny.
Anything that helps cut through the chaff conspiracy mongers keep throwing up is appreciated. I was talking to a guy who thought Hitler was just acting preemptively when he launched Barbarossa. I was so happy to enlighten him thanks to one of your episodes.
If I can ask a viewer question. How did each warring nation deal with PTSD among the troops. With the size and scope of the war the amount of people who took part ..
These is an excellent documentary from 1946 by John Huston called "Let There Be Light" on U.S. soldiers being treated for PTSD. You can watch here on TH-cam.
I just used it because its a term that most people recognize. I have PTSD from my time in service. Its a daily struggle I deal with each case each case is unique to the individual as to how and why. Mine probably more so than others. But you are 100% correct I just wasn't sure which term would be period correct. I ask because the vastness of the totality of WW2. So many fronts so many different attributes so many lives impacted in ways that its profoundly mind boggling to soak it all in. For every number is a face.. a story .. a life..
In a video made for TH-cam by the Imperial War Museum concerning what is widely regarded as the finest tank destroyer of WWII, the Jagdpanther, it is stated that less than a quarter of the planned number of those vehicles were manufactured as a result of Allied strategic bombing. Is that correct?
Difficult to say. The fact is that Germany produced much less than they initially planned to do. Now how much of that can be attributed to the bombing would be difficult to quantify. Unless there are specific bombing hits on production facilities it could also be because of the general scarcity of ressources.
Hard to say. Primarily because German tank production is held back by Nazi policy of not adopting US style manufacturing techniques out of ideological (Hitler and Todt hates how efficient the assembly line is in making goods) and labor reasons (part of a multi-pronged plan to "reduce" unemployment, along with barring women from the workforce)...
yes, and also most of the planned King Tiger tank production never happened because of the bombing. The question is: how much does it matter whether they were produced or not? Even the few hundred that did make it to their units most of the time barely had the oil and logistics to keep them operational. Even then, compared to the tens of thousands of other vehicles in the Wehrmacht, it would have made little difference whether a tank destroyer battalion received a Jagdpanther or a StuG.
As I'm sure Indy/Spartacus are already aware, the Allied top level commanders were pretty well convinced after the successful liberation of Sicily and invasion of Italy in 1943 that their victory was inevitable. While their timeline wasn't super accurate (they expected victory in late 1944), they still knew they were going to win. I'd day that weighs heavily in Spartacus's favor that the Allied area bombing campaign was unnecessary.
I'm generally someone who thinks the Japanese side of WWII history is one that is sorely overlooked, and is swirling in myths, generalizations, and misunderstandings. But even elementary academic reading on the subject proves FDR could not have known about Pearl Harbor, even the Japanese government's own ambassador to the US did not know about it until after it had already happened, to illustrate the level of secrecy the operation was under. I was even a bit intrigued by this theory at first, as FDR stood everything to gain politically from letting such an attack happen had he known of it, but the facts make it nearly impossible for FDR to have known of Pearl Harbor in advance.
@@highenergyv276 This is just patently false. The Japanese took extreme caution with who was allowed knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, only higher-ups of the Imperial military staff and the emperor and some of his aids knew, Ambassador Nomura and Special Envoy Kurusu, the ranking diplomats to the US, were not aware. They received an encrypted radiogram breaking diplomatic relations and declaring war only hours before the attack while the staff were still on Sunday holiday. Said radiogram could not be decrypted and delivered before the attack occurred. The intercepted Japanese diplomatic cables were only fractional pieces of everything, and even if they had all been intercepted and decoded, would only hint that something big may be building up, nothing specific or damning. Said messages were however intercepted and marked "low priority" anyway, and not analyzed by the relevant authorities until after the attack. The US however was noticing the increased traffic and suspicious diplomatic cables, and thus were in the middle of the process of beefing up Pacific defenses, especially those in the Philippines.
The Japanese intended to declare war on the US before the Pearl Harbor attacked, removing the element of surprise. FDR would somehow have to predict ahead of time that Japan would bungle it's own declaration of war to even make this conspiracy work.
@@highenergyv276 When you say "The US Navy sunk a Japanese submarine before the attack happened" you fail to mention this happened literally an hour before the main attack began, as the submarine, a Type A midget submarine, was maneuvering into position to join the attack. I agree the entire event was extremely politically convenient to FDR, but simple facts and rational analysis show it to clearly be a product of circumstance rather than some grand conspiracy.
@@highenergyv276 Two targets? Try seven. Along with Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, there is still Midway, Guam, Puget Sound in Washington, Los Angeles and San Diego in California...
I would love you guys to tackle common historical "conspiracy" theories. A sub-series of the Time Ghost Channel. Particularly the MLK and JFK assassinations. Arguments are compelling to see both in different ways than the official narrative. A neutral, factually researched version of events would be awesome! Love your work!
In America, most of WW2 is seen through the lenses of German / American accounts. Having a series dedicated to myth busting, or even seeing how other nations viewed specific events / the war, would be highly informative.
This is so good I had to watch it a couple of times. You guys are getting better every week!! Greetings from Dublin(Ireland). BTW -Ireland and Finland. A lot more in common than most Irish and Finnish realise. Historically speaking.
I've said for years if FDR knew, the morning of; the fleet could have sailed and the aircraft could be up to engage. As soon as the Japanese got there it was war. And the fleet could have pursued. You don't kill over 2k when you can defend yourself.
He had to sell it to the American people. SImply attacking and not killing a certain number would have been equal to Japan bombing the Panay and the US only asking for money!
"or people who haven't studied a lot of history..." looks like Ol' Indy has had just about of enough of homeschooled historians and conspiracy theorists.
and what exactly differentiates Indy from homeschooled, amateur historians? A popular youtube channel? I haven't seen him mention any academic credentials in military history. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but just because you have a successful youtube channel on military history does not make you an authority on the subject. In fact no one has that right. I like the work Indy and his cohorts are doing on this channel but at no point will I ever accept his opinion on specific matters as the end all be all in historic assessment. He and the rest of the staff do their homework and it shows but so do a hell of a lot of other opinionated people. Keep this in mind. Indy should take care on just how far he wants to push his opinion on the topic. I prefer when he sticks to just reporting the known facts without injecting opinion.
@@dongately2817 so going out of his way to address "reverse engineering" in this video is not an agenda? :) Don't get me wrong he usually tries to stay indifferent and just report the facts but lately...
The "History" Channel said Aliens -- aboard the Soviet steamship Uritskii -- helped the Kidō Butai with advanced weather forecasts allowing them to make the trip from the Kuril Islands to Pearl Harbor undetected... Another candid, well-researched and well-produced video from team WW2. Thank you. By far the best channel on TH-cam. Semper Fidelis
In 1943, the German Air Force effectively disappeared from the Russin front. They didn't go into a vacuum. They went to fight the USAAF and the RAF in the skies over Germany. That left the German Army, in the east, without effective air cover. If we are to believe that had no effect on the duration and outcome of the war, then we must conclude that the actual fighting had very little effect on the war either. Spartacus, this is more rubbish.
Agree 100%. The resources Germany devoted to combating the bomber offensive, most especially trained, veteran fighter pilots, were absolutely vital and irreplaceable. You cannot overstate the importance of air superiority in World War Two.
Hey thanks for the reply to my comment in video form, it was cool. We already went back in forth on this a lot in the comment section on a video awhile back for anyone that wants to see it. This way we don't need to rehash what was already said. I tried to look for it but can't find it. It was in one of the War Against Humanity videos maybe 1-2 months ago (maybe 3). So everyone is aware I said this reply in reply to something Sparty said in his War Against Humanity video. I wish I could find the video to get the exact quote. But it was something along the lines of "the allied bombing campaign didn't help end the war". Which is what I was disagreeing with. If I find the video I was commenting in and Sparty's exact quote I will edit my comment to show it. In reply to what you said in this video about the allied bombing not picking up until later in the war. That is true but the Germans were already spending a large percent of their GDP on air defenses prior to the allied bombing becoming large. That is GDP that the Germans could be spending elsewhere such as on infrastructure and supply to the Eastern front. The allied threat against Germany and the rest of the Axis was such that the Germans and other Axis powers started focusing on their air-defense even before things got bad. It was after just a single British bombing raid early in the war that Goring was able to convince Hitler to dedicate even more to air-defense in order to protect their production. It was this air-defense that the Germans still had up early in the war that made the British and the Americans hesitant to launch the massive air-strikes they would send out in later years during the early years of the war. And even while that air-defense was not defending against large amounts of allied bombers the Germans were still spending the GDP to keep it running. There were literally hundrads of thousands and millions later in the war dedicated to running the German air-defense. Those are people that could be doing more useful things to Germany winning the war. As always keep up the good work!
We have to understand this from a fuel shortage perspective. Whatever fuel Germany can either make synthetically or get from Romania, in 1941 and 1942 goes immediately to the Eastern Front to take the Caucuses oil fields. Some goes to North Africa, a little bit to the Atlantic for the Luftwaffe. But the fuel going to the Atlantic isn't enough for routine operations for air superiority, just enough to react to any raids. As you say, after a single raid Goering wants more static AA defenses. Not because the raid was destructive to production but because the Luftwaffe doesn't have enough fuel to repel the attack mid-air. Static AA defenses without needing fuel to run makes much more sense to build so you can save your precious supplies of limited fuel for either some offensive mission in the Atlantic, ability to respond mid-air to a huge raid, or more importantly, train new pilots as you're losing them fast in Russia. AA defenses were the infrastructure needed to win the war, but not because the raids were terribly devastating to industry, rather, they were built to free up fuel for the front. Also, AA defenses can be run by civilians and requires little training so its much more cost effective on that score rather than fully maintain Luftwaffe squadrons that have no fuel to fly anyways. Check out the videos that TIK does on the oil crisis, Potential History has a couple, and so does Military History Visualized.
@@hoopsmcgee8272 I have seen the video TIK has done on the oil crises and it is very good. I have seen Potential History and Military History Visualized videos as well. I am very into WW2 so I watch tons of WW2 content on TH-cam in my free time. Back to the topic though. The amount Germany was spending on their air-defense was not just effecting them in fuel saving ways though. For example, if Germany was not being bombed by the allies they could have spent more on making more trains and extracting more coal from the ground a resource that Germany and the Axis had in abundance (see TIKs video on trains, coal and supply). Also if Germany was not being bombed could have built more supply planes as well to help supply the Eastern front and would have had more fuel to run those planes since they would not have to use a large amount of their air-power defending the territory they already controlled. They would have had a massive amount more fuel to use on the Eastern front if they were not having to operate anywhere from 30-60% or greater of their air-force against the allies at any given time in the war. Or they could have just used the whole of their air-force or the majority of it against the USSR in the East if they didn't need to worry about defending the territory they already controlled. Also without having to use hundreds of thousands of Axis men to man the air-defenses that gives them either more soldiers or more people able to operate the supply lines which could then move those troops up to the front lines. Then there is the medical capacity. If Germans were not being killed and inured via allied bombing runs that allows for more German medical teams to be working on injured Germans on the Eastern front allowing for more lives to be saved there allowing them to put troops back into the field or saving the troops lives and allowing them to go back to Germany to work in a factory or something not along the front lines. The lack of bombing also makes it so the Germans don't need to keep repairing things and finding/building new homes for the de-housed Germans. That allows them to instead build new things rather than repair already built things. So they could instead be laying down more train tracks or building better defenses and so on (the list is really so insanely long). If they had done any of that, that expands how long the war lasts. There really are just so many ways that the bombing campaign affected the Axis that is often not taken into account when people just look at the German production numbers and see that they were increasing in many areas throughout the war. So to conclude, I don't see how anyone can think about all of that and not believe that the war was shortened via the allied bombing campaigns. Yes, those bombing campaigns killed civilians (don't say innocent civilians because how many German civilians were actually fully innocent?). But instead of those civilians then dying we then have many more American, British, Russian and other allied troops dying because the war is lasting much longer, the Germans have better defenses and are more well armed. Expanding the duration of the war also then leads to the war being fought in Soviet and Polish territory for longer. Leading to them having even more civilians deaths than they already encountered. So then what should the leaders of the allied nations say to the families of their slain family after the war? I'm sorry I didn't want to kill Axis civilians the way they were killing our civilians via bombing campaigns on their homeland. I know that lead to the war lasting longer and lead to your family (the people I represent) dying in greater numbers. But this was the right thing to do. I know if I was the leader of an allied nation I could not tell the families of my people that. That I let our people die in far greater numbers because I didn't want to bomb the people who started the war and started pattern of bombing cities.
I also think that Allied bombing was a huge drain on Germany's limited ressources, however, you should not overlook that it was also a massive burden on the UK, since a massive bomber fleet is very expensive. Basically attritional, asymmetric warfare in the dirtiest way possible. British atrocities differ from German ones only in raw numbers and the fact that German atrocities were generally a burden on their own war effort, while British atrocities benefited their war effort.
@@PhillyPhanVinny The allied bombing campaign had zero effect on the ability to make war on the Eastern Front. Germany could only win in Russia if it captured the oil fields in Maykop, Grozny, and Bakku. Then, if they could keep them secure, transport that crude oil back for refining in Romania at least if not Germany proper. Until that happens, there isn't enough fuel to keep the military advancing. It doesn't matter how many tanks, planes, or trucks a factory can produce if there is no fuel to get them from Dusseldorf to Donetsk. That was the whole point of TIK's video on the oil crisis. In 1941 and 1942, Germany and Romanian oil fields can only produce enough fuel for the Wermacht to operate for about 3 months, in an offensive capacity. You cannot win an offensive war where 75% of the time you have to sit still. And that has nothing to do with factory production of trucks, planes, and panzers but a fact of fuel limitations. Heck, we even saw in the weekly videos back in 1940 that French and Belgian coal miners were going on strike due to wages, working conditions, and hours. The fuel shortage (either coal or petrol) was a factor before Harris even thought about a carpet bombing campaign. And once we use that lens as the critical key of understanding German logistics, it makes complete sense to replace as much fuel using operations in the West with static, non-fueled defenses. Therefore, the AA guns were not a response to Harris but a necessity to make war in Russia in 1941 onwards. We have seen in the weekly episodes this year that the bombing campaign has had little effect on production and morale in Germany. If a factory is hit it is usually up and running in a couple weeks. At the exact same time, summer offenses have been stalled due to a simple lack of fuel, not a lack of equipment. From 1943 onwards, German production is able to adapt and quickly meet the changes in German military doctrine, changing from offensive "bewegungskrieg" to a static, defensive posture. The Big Cats and tank killers are a direct result of fuel shortages, shorter supply lines, limited offensive operations, and a defensive nature on the Eastern Front, not RAF bombing. If the RAF had been successful in its bombing of industries, how could the German army pivot so well from pincer movements to pill boxes? Because they weren't successful. I would argue that the carpet bombing may have increased the length of the war. As we saw in the weekly videos, back in 1940 the British resolved to stay in the fight, rallied around their King in the rubble of London. Do you think the Germans would be different? Its possible that these raids may have stymied planned strikes, sabotage, riots, as happened in WW1 in Germany in 1917 onward as shortages got bad (which Germany was already experiencing mass shortages in 1940, barely 1 year in, not 4!). As a veteran of the Iraq War, I can tell you civilians do not like indiscriminate death and it will not win over hearts and minds of the population. The money spent of the AA defenses was necessary to free up fuel for the Eastern Front, not a response to Harris's campaign. Regardless of what Germany produced in war materials, it didn't matter because they didn't have the fuel to ship them from Point A to Point B. Even if the Germans had built thousands of kilometers of tracks in the conquered territories (which they didn't have the fuel to do so), it would have been done in the hope of capturing Russian crude oil, not a guarantee, which any planner or logistician would reject out right. The only sector Germany could have funded that could change its fatal fuel situation would have been sustainable energy, namely solar, wind and nuclear. Solar was in its infancy still and not terribly practical, wind turbines could have been built if the wind conditions are good for it in Central Europe (which I'm not sure they are), and nuclear energy was the research of Jewish physicists, and as such not a science the mustached man regime would use. Also, sustainable energy goes against their ideology, in that, hard work like coal mining and oil rig work made the Germans "superior" to others. To paraphrase Potential History here, the only way Germany can win WW2 is if you change the ideology of the N*zis. And if you do that, then WW2 probably doesn't happen, at least not the way it did in our timeline.
@@michaelkovacic2608 I would strongly disagree that "British atrocities differ from German ones only in raw numbers". German atrocities in WW2 were racial genocide. The British and other allied forces bombing of German and other Axis forces cities was first off a response to German and Japanese actions. And secondly the bombing actions were an effort to shorten the already deadliest war in human history and as a result save lives. For example, if the American nuclear bombings of Japan didn't happen Japan continues the war and forces the Allies to launch the largest invasions in human history of the Japanese main islands. That results in millions more deaths of both Allied and Japanese troops but also Japanese civilians. So for the cost of a few hundreds thousand Japanese civilians versus the deaths of millions of both allied and Japanese that trade is worth it to save lives. That is not something that Germany or Japan were trying to do in their war crimes they committed during WW2.
That was really historically interesting by Spartacus. Can I ask when you believe that this point where it was simply of question of the allies superior supply of resources (if I understand what you're saying right) was reached? I did some reading on the topic of bombing for an extra extended school project for 1944 onwards about the Luftwaffe over Germany and concluded that despite efforts such as big week and all the bombing it was ineffective as production numbers of aircraft increased. Of course, particularly for the US daylight raids you could probably make arguements about the planes the escorts shot down, but the point still stands. However, as you said the numbers of planes were irrelevant as it was the loss of trained pilots that killed the Luftwaffe during (I would have said) 1944. Is that what you are aiming for with your observation, that the axis could not sustain the trained men needed? I hope this comment makes some sense, and thank you for the video!
No, because Suvorov doesn't actually quote anyone or anything. His entire premise is "It is because I said so", and he is the only one saying it, with others actually quoting him. His Icebreaker is intentionally a work of fiction as through controversy he gains the visibility to sell the book and profit. It is like writing a book saying Nazis went to the far side of the Moon and made a base. It is idiotic, but the inherent controversy of the subject then drives the sales of a book like that - which is the end point, to make money. Also, skilled in the craft know, a topic like that creates a very vocal minority (of idiots) that then goes on and markets your book (or "documentary" or what ever) for free, so all you need to do is write some trash controversial enough and the thing will sell itself. You can watch in fact any of the Suvorov's "lessons", he never mentions a single source for anything he claims. All that he ever does is present you with a well known fact and then twists it in a way to try and jam it in his narrative that has absolutely no backing in any historical material. And the very fact that he is the only one saying it with all others saying it actually only quoting Suvorov himself, should tell you that there is no historical merit in it.
@@Wustenfuchs109 Far right supporters tend to like him - the Axis claimed the USSR was about to attack in 1941 at the time, although the huge Soviet defeats in 1941 tended to suggest unreadiness for any such operation.
@@Wustenfuchs109 I don’t think Victor Suvorov is right about an immanent Soviet attack on Nazi Germany in 1941. However there are indications that Stalin’s plan was for Nazi Germany on one side and France and Britain on the other side to weaken each other, so that Stalin could profit at the expense of all of them. Ik am now reading the book ‘Stalin’s War’ written by Sean McMeekin.
@@robertskrzynski2768 No. Tik dismissed Suvorov. He did not debunk him. Suvorov wrote 2 books on Stalin's plans to strike Nazi Germany.: Icebreaker and The Chief Culprit. None of these TH-cam historians have read the books.
The "US knew about Pearl and let it happen" conspiracy is so funny to me because it's so baseless. You don't need a false flag attack or whatever to get into a defensive war and nothing would have changed if the US had prepared for Pearl Harbor.
That's the twisted beauty of Pearl Harbor. Japan bungled on declaring war on the US, making the declaration came hours after the attack thus making them the enemy. A classic case of "Not interrupting your enemy while making a mistake"...
It’s always funny how people say FDR let Pearl Harbor happen because he wanted a war with Hitler…when it was Hitler who knee jerk reacted after Pearl Harbor and declared war on the US, not the other way around. And it fails to take into account what Japan had been doing in China since 1931. Then again I’m a strong believer that Japan’s role leading up and starting WW2 has been vastly ignored because it’s not the simple cardboard cutouts of white hats v black hats we’ve turned Europe and nazi Germany into
@@axelpatrickb.pingol3228 If you're talking about the 14 part message supposedly delivered late because the Japanese Embassy couldn't type fast enough, it was not a declaration of war, nor was there anything in it implying their was an imminent threat of the Japanese attacking the U.S. You can read the thing online if you want.
Even if USA knew, and/or Japan had notified the war in advance, it doesn't change anything. Japan sailed through the pacific to attack first. USA would have entered war anyway after Pearl Harbor.
Lets walk down the events in the hypothetical "US knew". 1, Japanese navy on its way to attack 2a (nefarious version) do nothing to avoid damages of attack, 3a attack happens damages Hawaii and the Philippines. 2b (sensible version) prepares to defend Pearl Harbor and the Philippines 3b attack happens small damages to the Philippines and Pearl Harbor, considerable losses to the Japanese navy. 4 a or b US falls into the war.
Hey Indy, sparty & crew Would love if you could briefly discuss Irelands role in ww2. As a Irishman myself its rarely discussed here how german bombers accidentally dropped bombs on Dublin and how both English and german air crew who bailed out were inturned in ireland. I dont know if it's TRUE but apparently the air crew had a fair bit of freedom to visit towns and cinemas so long as they returned to the camps at a certain time. With some english aircrew discreetly being given back to England even with Irelands neutrality. Also with how the Eamon De Valera the irish taoiseach at the close of the war writing in the book of condolences at the german embassy for Hitler's death in 1945 is sort of a spread subject for ireland and I imagine adds to how irelands role in ww2 here is downplayed. Anyway keep up the great content. Your great Craic. (Craic= pronounced "crack" for fun)
What made that act on De Valera's part so galling is that just a few days before he had stated that as the head of a neutral state he could not offer official condolences to the US for the death of President Roosevelt. I could understand if it had been Churchill, but what did the US ever do to Ireland or to De Valera himself to deserve such a snub?
“History in a Vacuum” is continuing today with very recent events Nov 2020, Jan 2021 ughh. Thank you again for a very insightful commentary based on facts 👊🏼
In high school I had a history teacher who said FDR knew about Pearl Harbor. I always thought it was dumb since FDR could have no way of knowing Hitler would be dumb enough to join in after Japan.
Your teacher was onto something, clearly elements of the American government knew full well War was imminent and only pride stops us hearing the full truth, these fellows are just being cautious.. I'd hope.
@@DaveSCameron Yeah, they knew war was probably unavoidable - THAT'S WHY THEY WERE SHIPPING THOSE BOMBERS TO THE PHILIPPINES! But if you stretch "they knew something was looming" into "they knew the exact time and date" then you should probably become a yoga instructor, because that is one impressive stretch!
The eminent start of the US involvement in a global war was clearly seen in the years before December 1941. We had the Neutrality Patrols in the Atlantic from the beginning of the Germany U-Boat raids on the Atlantic convoys. In the Pacific, McArthur had some idea that the Philippines were in the way to the Japanese Economic Co-Prosperity Zone. McArthur convinced Roosevelt that he needed more defense troops in country, so the US shipped out 5 battalions of artillery and squadrons of pursuit airplanes not two weeks before December 7. These Americans were part of a callup of National Guard units in the previous year, and the implementation of draft boards. He saw the war in China as an action to increase the production of steel for the Japanese fleet. One of the resources that Japan needed to conquer an empire, was US refined petroleum products, the US reduced the export of those product in response to the war in China
@@steveschulte8696 Hmm, so neutrality predated 1941 hey, I'm quite sure that you "sphere of influence" Latin American countries along with Liberia, Philippines etc may disagree...
With FDR, I've always thought FDR knew ~something~ was going to happen with Japan, but couldn't know where, what, or the precise date. Saying he knew Pearl Harbor itself was going to happen is blatantly wrong but I think it should've been obvious to all involved at the time that Japan was about to make some kind of big move. Clearly, though, without knowing exactly what that was FDR couldn't have defended against it, or, as the conspiracy theory suggests, allowed it to happen
If FDR didn't have a hunch something would happen somewhere with the Japanese then he'd have to be the dumbest president up to that point. Like I doubt he knew it'd be pearl harbor. Probably assumed it'd be somewhere in Asia. In hindsight it seems like both nations were just waiting to see who threw the first punch.
Two very big questions, aptly answers. I wish I could have the suave of Indy and the Class of Sparticus when speaking on such controversial and moving subjects. Its clear that both men are heavily invested in the answers they gave, but put it across in such a way that no one can say they were being, biased, demeaning, derogatory or dismissive.
The history in a vacuum series is a good idea and you should do it. There are thousands of things about WW2 that people dictate as some Machiavellian plot to justify the things that happen that should be given a definitive closer look to close the book on the issue. It would also mean more content from Timeghost, which I always welcome and enjoy. Hope all is well, love your vids.
Each day we go through a wide variety of comments left by our community members from all over the world. In our format 'Across the Airwaves', we take a look at some of the comments that really stood out to us and directly address them, allowing us to expand on our content in a way we were able to before. Thank you to our community, especially the TimeGhost Army members who make it possible for us to regularly release content.
Hope you enjoy this episode, as always, don't forget to read our rules of conduct before commenting: community.timeghost.tv/t/rules-of-conduct/4518
What bothers me is it seems there was alot of unusual activity in the region up until the attack. I have no issue with what happened either way but it sounds like there is an implication at minimum of ineptitude....
I'd just like to know what wine Indy is drinking. I suspect a mellifluous Nappa Cabernet Sauvignon but would like to believe it's a big, ballsy Amarone (15% ABV) 😎😀😊
Guys, let's use common sense. What is the chance that Americans were REALLY surprised by the Japanese attack on PH? I think the chance is pretty slim. Americans wanted the pretext to enter the war. PH attack was the excellent reason.
Besides they removed all carriers from the base so the attack de facto did very little. That's one thing.
Second. Keep in mind that many documents related to WW2 are still classified as top secret. Yes, that many years have passed and some of the papers still have the red stamp "TOP SECRET" on them. For example Heinrich Himmler's autopsy documents, those papers are top secret until 2045. The bottom line is.
We still don't know everything about WW2.
@@oldi184 "the attack de facto did very little" yeah aside LOSING 6 FUCKING BATTLESHIPS which allowed the japanese to steamroll south-east asia
@@ryanthethunderbolt229 how many of those battleships were used for target practice? - and/or too old to used to anything than backup/or an expensive destroyer to guard other ships.
Dr. Strangelove said it best: "The whole point of a doomsday machine [or deterrent] is lost if you keep it a secret! Why didn't you tell the world?!"
We were going to unveil it at the party convention this coming monday
The Secretary loves surprises.
I CAN WALK!
@@bmyers7078 😂😂😂.
I also thought of that part in the movie! I should watch that again
I would absolutely love to see a “History Doesn’t Happen in a Vacuum” series! Indy’s explanation on Pearl Harbor is exactly the type of conversation I’ve had countless times when someone brings that story up.
"all you have to do is ignore all the other evidence to the contrary" (paraphrasing) INDY FTW
Agreed
there was a secret plan to firebomb Japan before Pearl Harbor, known as “JB 355.”
signed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt
@@atmark666 that means nothing, having a plan to do something and doing are two seperate things ans that still doesn't means they knew anout it.
@@atmark666 USA also had plans to make war with the English, as well as the Soviets, as well as the Mexicans, and on and on and on. Plans are one thing, putting them into action is another.
When I was in college, I studied (of all things) Medieval Studies. This wasn't simply history, but art, literature, music, even medicine and science from the era. This sowed deep into me the notion that you can't know about history simply by looking at names and dates, battles and leaders. What I appreciate about this series (and your related endeavours) is that you don't talk about events in a vacuum, but rather bring a broader context to the events. A president or a dictator isn't thinking about their war or their power 130% of the time; instead, like most human beings, they have other cares as well, some of them related to their broader efforts and some of them "simple" household concerns. Thank you, again, for this context. In many ways, this series has helped put a better perspective on my parents' lives -- my father born in 1926, my mother in 1924.
Thank you for the kind words! We're very happy to see how much you appreciate our work, it truly makes it all worth it. Stay tuned, and thank you for being a fan!
Love to see a “History doesn’t happen in a vacuum “ series
I agree wholeheartedly
I'd be interested to know what the question about the Maginot Line was between you and Indy and how it was definitely answered. Always good to see people willing to change opinions based on facts. Personally, I'd always allowed a little doubt about the "FDR let Pearl Harbor happen" to remain, but that Philippines bombers arguments is one I hadn't heard before and is quite convincing.
My take away on the Maginot Line series is that it should not be viewed a defensive line that was designed to stop an invasion but to slow it down long enough for the French reserves an army to be brought up. (One need only look at the Japanese defenses in the Pacific to see how effective those can be at slowing down, but not stopping, an invasion). The main reason it failed was due mainly to the poor leadership of the French generals
@@stopspammandm it sort of forces the international issue by making the Germans go into Belgium. I think if you're a French strategist of the inter war era, you're looking at WW1 and how you got bled dry and you're looking at the demographic realities, that you immediately realize that you probably won't have great chances of a prolonged fight with the Germans on your own... so you give Germany two options: stage histories largest and costliest siege of fortifications, or make it another world war by violating Belgium's guaranteed neutrality.
Of course with hindsight we see this to be foolish thinking or wishful thinking maybe, but it's difficult for us to understand their motivations and reasoning so far removed from the time and technology.
@@420JackG You’re forgetting that the maginot line was from Belgium all the way down to Italy, but the defenses were stronger and more concentrated on the German border
@@420JackG further defences along the border with were planned, but building them along the direct border is what you do first, and not least because of the message it would have sent to the Belgians. There was some talk of funding Belgium to build defences, but that has other political dimensions too. Ditto the Ardennes - not bring considered good territory for attack, it wasn't in the first tranches of building, but then your natural strong point can become your weak point if everywhere else is strong.
Part of the issue was funding - France was also trying to build new tanks, planes, ships, guns, and there was some 'value engineering' of the Maginot Line.
And, noting history doesn't happen in a vaccum, the problematic politics of France in the 1930s plays a big role.
@@wbertie2604 The soil type on French-Belgian border did not permit construction of formidable fortifications identical to those on French-German border.
You should do a series on the Space Race. You could call it "History happens in a vacuum."
Indy laying the smack down to stupid ideas about history sounds like a good series.
Ah yes, he has all the good ideas about history.
I would love to see Indy rebuke that neo-nazi Europa documentary that gets passed around in the comments from time to time. But perhaps it's not worth giving attention to.
@@CarrotConsumer i too, blindly follow the soviet line of history.
People’s heads are often like a vacuum is another good one. What the heck were they thinking, or were they thinking, when they did…. Whatever.
@@ludaMerlin69 Ah. Not buying into neo-fascist pseudo-history makes me a soviet. Cool story bro. Why are you here? You obviously don't care about history, research, or scientific method, so why do you watch a series that you consider to be "soviet propaganda".
"History does not happen in a vacuum" as an episode? That would be genious! There are way too many who pick out individual events and twist them way beyond reason.
Is genious the English spelling too?
@@DaveSCameron should probably have written ingenious. A person is a genius. An idea can be ingenious.English is not in any way my first language. And my gadgets are set to correct Swedish.
@@erikgranqvist3680 I hear you and only pulling your leg my friend 😊
What if it’s just the history of vacuums? Lol.
@@tigertank06 You sucker you, 😊
I mean the Wake islands and other US territories were attacked as well between 7 and 10 of December (depending on the time zone) with different fleets. As well as Midway when Kido Butai was returning from Pearl. So technically FDR could use these attacks to wage war, without risking the Bombers in the Philippines or the Fleet in Pearl
Nope. Congress and the Public would not buy that play. It also does not pencil out for Tokyo.
Yamamoto was motivated by a BOOK..."The Great Pacific War." It was reprinted -- and is still available on Amazon.
But the folks at "World War Two" have not read it.
BTW, FDR had MANY gambits designed to drive Tokyo nuts so as to initiate hostilities.
The Flying Tigers and the oil embargo were but the few.
So why did Douglas not scramble the air corps after hearing about Pearl? Why let them be destroyed on the ground?
@@realrhetoric for the same reason that the Wake Island's commander Cunningham didn't order his planes to take off just before the Japanese attack and so all but 4 were destroyed. He didn't knew the attack on Pearl
@@ioannis1056 Well, if he didn't know of the attack on Pearl, and he didn't have scout planes up looking for potential attackers, yeah, understandable. I'd heard Douglas had plenty of advance notice, though.
Of course, he made plenty of other errors, like not provisioning Corregidor, so it wouldn't be out of character for him just to FU.
@@realrhetoric Scout Planes were in the air. Anyways, also note that Brigadier General Sutherland (chief of stuff to General MacArthur) first learnt the attack of Pearl Harbor by radio broadcast! He later was ordered to attack Taiwan (most probable Japanese air base able to attack the Philippines). After a discussion, however, the bombers remained grounded. Then patrols were ordered (there was much fog) and after some other stuff, the Japanese came
Actually what Indy has said about "FDR Knew about Pearl Harbor", Applies in all aspects of history (in general) not just WW2
Yes indeed. As he pointed out
Conspiracy theories nearly always start with some detail that “don’t fit the narrative”, and builds some ridiculous shit from there.
@@thomasfsan First, let me say that I'm no fan of conspiracy theories in general.
Just for one thing, they almost always accuse someone of being incompetent or even criminal... at the very least criminally negligent.
The "FDR knew about Pearl Harbor" theory/myth is different.
Let's pretend, for the moment, that they *did* know... just pretend.
It's not a "conspiracy" because it involves the *correct* people making decisions which are entirely within their *LEGAL* authority to make. Thus, no conspiracy.
Still pretending that they *did* know... they had a right to expect the patrols and defenses at Pearl Harbor to be able to deal with the threat... even if they knew that Pearl Harbor was a specific... and *immediate* risk.
So, at this point, just leaving it as a *possibility* that they knew...
Of course the enemy needs to know about deterrents in order for them to BE deterrents... but once the enemy has already made their decision, those deterrents simply become threats and TARGETS... problems for the enemy to solve or avoid. They are no longer deterrents. The time for deterrents and diplomacy is over.
Indy's logic on deterrents may be stellar... it may be on a par with E=mc-squared... but that doesn't tell you how to change a flat tire... and is about that relevant to this particular theory. It's the wrong solution for this problem/myth/theory.
I learned this theory about 40 years ago... so I may have forgotten parts of it, but here's what I remember...
1) We'd broken Japan's diplomatic codes... but NOT their military codes.
2) Thus, we (FDR, Marshall, etc) knew AN attack was coming.
3) We did *not* know when, where, or how that attack was coming.
Now to put things in context...
NOTHING like the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor had ever happened before. (Opinion... Taranto similar... but not the same.)
Pearl *should* have been able to get their own defenses manned, and their planes in the air. Marshall and FDR had a reasonable right to expect competence from their field commanders and soldiers, and a reasonable right to expect the patrols around Pearl to detect an attack in time enough to do that...
Washington *seriously* underestimated the Japanese abilities... which makes it even more credible that they would allow the attack to take place, and rely on the troops to defend themselves.
@@Nyet-Zdyes Actually, the USN AND RN had both cracked JN24 -- and all the way back to JN01 (1923) -- read Nave. JN25 had the exact same structure and scheme. They just needed more intercepts to get the last bits lined up. And then there is the code-within-a-code -- such as "AF." Those were the last items to ever be doped out -- and why every military keeps laying on code names for complex descriptors.
The IJN DID NOT STAY OFF THE AIR during their sortie to PH. A storm screwed up Plan A. Hence, mere radio direction finding located the strike force.
Japan had a HISTORY of attacking while negotiating. (Russia) Japan had a history of a total code book change over right before a super-strategic attack. (Russia, et. al)
The book "The Great Pacific War" spelled out WHY Japan had to attack PH FIRST. It was published in 1925 -- and can be bought on Amazon right now. (A reprint.)
Yamamoto used the EXACT same invasion beaches laid out in that pre-war fiction. (!!!)
Short piled up his aircraft onto the middle of his runways -- per THIS BOOK. Yeah, Short and Kimmel had read it, too. THEY were using the book's ideas, too.
PH had been attacked by Adm King just months earlier -- in a war game. The USN had gamed an air assault against PH for a DECADE already.
FDR had sent the latest radar and B-17s to Pearl precisely so that they would discover the IJN fleet at the last second. The B-17s were a WEEK LATE. Their late arrival screwed up the radar report. The officers involved were canned. They had taken their own sweet time relocating from Washington State to Hickam.
Your fundamentals are CORRECT. Indy is way, way, way off base. FDR expected that Kimmel would utterly blunt the IJN attack -- but he didn't -- even though Washington was sending everything his way.
The American public was outraged -- even without knowing that Pearl had been hard hit. ANY attack would've 'triggered' Americans.
Remember the Maine and to hell with Spain! ;-)
Wow, Indy... I watch your series since 2016 (and I have binge-watched The Great War earlier material) and I'm really impressed by your take down of the Pearl Harbor conspiracy. It's not about the power of argument, but the skill with which you have adapted the knowledge to the form of a short video. That should stick. I certainly would like to see more of it. Thank you!
Spartacus Olsen, a historically literate intellect willing to publicly acknowledge he could be wrong, and if he discovers he is, will publicly change his mind. That is a rather rare commodity in this day and age. I salute you sir.
Why thank you!
Nevertheless, if Vinny's data is correct, then let's switch the German air defense expense (40% -> 3%) and armored vehicle expense (3% -> 40 %), then it's quite obvious that German could increase their Panzerkampfwagen VI production from 1,300 to 13,000, also Panzerkampfwagen V production from 6,000 to 60,000.
Then would Soviet's 100,000 T-34 overrun Heer? I don't think so, at least impossible to do so before 1946. German would be defeated by the atomic bombs, and Japan would at least survive the year 1946 and 1947.
Is this decisive according to your standard? I don't know. But I won't say it is not important.
@@AkiraNakamoto I've red similar assumptions regarding aircraft production and diversion of resources to Flak guns. However, Spartacus' point was that Germany didn't loose because they ran out of tanks and planes. They ran out of land, trained soldiers/pilots and crucially, crude oil and refined petroleum products. Germany produced far more aircraft, especially fighters in 1944 than in any other year. Yes, production statistics at this point were very unreliable, (as well as inflating numbers by classifying refurbished planes as "new" for example and raiding the spare part supply closet bare) but it was clear that both the German and Japanese air forces were beaten more by lack of capable pilots and fuel. As the Allies advanced across Germany, they found airfields and factories packed with completed and capable airframes as well as various armored vehicles. But again, they were in the wrong place, the transportation network was wrecked and there was no fuel.
The one Allied air campaign that really did hurt Germany was the synthetic oil campaign, which only really got going in mid 1944. It was effective because it was conducted mostly during daylight and achieved enough accuracy to utterly wreck German fuel production. A secondary impact was on the quality of German munitions. It did seriously impact the ability to conduct operations on the ground, turning the vaunted German heavy tanks into virtually useless pillboxes. Area bombing at night would have required several more years and vast multiples of the available bombers to achieve the same effect on German bottlenecks, if it could ever even achieve it.
Also, Flak didn't shoot down that many Allied aircraft, but it did severely disrupt bombing accuracy.
@@DBMirageIX Romania's Ploiesti petroleum supply is working even today. Hitler didn't have fuel problem until Soviet's Jassy-Kishinev Offensive launched on August 20, 1944.
If Hitler had 60,000 Panzerkampfwagen V, there was no chance that Soviet's Jassy-Kishinev Offensive could take over Romania and ended Hitler's fuel suppy.
You should do "history doesn't happen in a vacuum" but only if it examines myths of the same caliber as the FDR Pearl Harbor myth. Its a primo myth.
edit: and given the replies, somehow a lot of people are *STILL* persuaded of it even after watching this video which I feel disproves the theory.
The first moon landing is now history - having happened more than 50 years ago. There are plenty of tin foil hat myths about that - and explaining it from a "doesn't happen in a vacuum" could go a long way to dispelling the myths.
@@laurendoe168 yeah, but that part of history actually did happen in vacuum.
@@jr.bobdobbs LOL You are absolutely right :)
@@jr.bobdobbs Get out.
@@jr.bobdobbs bruh
As a historian (whose name that I cannot remember or the book I read from) once wrote, "Pearl Harbor - where all the conspiracy theories go to die", or words similar. Sampling of some of the "theories" have read about:
Yep - FDR knew about that Pearl Harbor was going to attacked and said nothing.
Winston Churchill knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor and said nothing.
Joseph Stalin knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor and said nothing.
The American ambassador to Japan was told about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor and did nothing.
General MacArthur US Army Commander in The Philippines) knew about the impending attack and that is why he had his entire air-fleet parked out in the open.
General Walter Short, US Army Commander in Hawaii, knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor and was told by FDR to place his aircraft like he did so that they could be destroyed better.
Admiral Husband Kimmel knew about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor and was ordered by FDR to place the entire fleet in the harbor and to ensure maximum personnel were on shore leave.
Everyone expected war with Japan eventually, not very many people expected Pearl Harbor would be attacked because of the distances and most likely route to be taken. Most people figured that a Japanese fleet would be spotted in plenty of time should they be fool-hardy enough to try something that dumb. Just about everyone expected either: Wake Island, The Philippines, or Guam to be the likely targets. If an attack were to be made on Pearl Harbor, the most likely avenues of approach was thought to have been from the Marshall Islands.
"History does not happen in a vacuum."
In outer space it does.
underrated comment
Physicist here in an absolute vacuum there is no change and therefore no time, therefore there is no history in a vacuum as the literal definition of a absolute vacuum is a space where there is nothing.
Nothing in the universe however is an absolute vacuum unless you count the edge of space, as it breaks a law of thermodynamics, entropy will cause particles and heat to enter the vacuum and because you can't have a self sustaining system it is impossible to have the space with nothing, if you ever did theoretically have a space like this extremely small particles will enter the vacuum, you can however get relatively close.
Boooooo
It did.
@@_vallee_5190 Didn't Heisenberg uncertainty principle guarantees the nonexistence of an absolute vacuum?
What a resource this series is. You've done a service to humanity
In addition to saying history cannot be studied in a vacuum, we should remember that history has to ignore hindsight when reviewing events. First of all, the movement of the fleet into areas of concern has been policy since the founding of navies. This is how you project power in a region where you are concerned that things may be going the wrong way. The worry for most military tacticians was that Japan would attack the Philippines. That is why the fleet was moved to Pearl Harbor from San Diego. It would shorten the response time of the fleet to the area that we expected trouble from Japan. If they wanted to bait Japan with the fleet, they would have sent it to Manila not Pearl. Besides, there was no way a major fleet could sail that far across the Pacific without being seen. Well the Japanese proved the error or that.
Many use as a justification for the setup of the fleet that the day of the battleship was over anyway so we sacrifice a few older ships and get the Japanese to take the bait. This doesn’t take into account the naval doctrines prevalent at the time. No nation, not even the Japanese felt that the day of the battleship was over. Otherwise they wouldn’t have built the two super battleships Musashi and Yamato. The US was building new fast battleships as were the Italians and Germans. The lessons from the battle of Taranto were not heeded by many with the exception of the Japanese. That question was decided by the Pearl Harbor attack and that was why they didn’t push carriers to the front of the line till this happened.
Finally, Roosevelt may have wanted war, but his real concern was the Germans. The Japanese were badly underestimated by most of the military. The pact between Japan and Germany was a defensive pact. They were pledged to join together if either of them was attacked. Note that if either country attacked someone else, there was no obligation to join in. Otherwise Japan would have gone to war with the USSR when Germany invaded. Hitler did Roosevelt a huge favor by declaring war when he was in no obligation to do so. Roosevelt didn’t look a gift horse in the mouth as if Hitler hadn’t done so, he would have had a hard time convincing the people to go to war with Germany when we were already fighting Japan. No it wasn’t bait to get Japan to attack. the ones he would have wanted to fight were in Europe, not the Pacific. He got more than he really wanted.
agree with everything you said except the Hitler part. Hitler thought that by 1941 they were at war with the US anyway (what with the lend-lease and all), and the actual declaration was more of a formality. Heck, German and American naval engagements were happening since early 1941. What also cemented his decision was his egregious overestimation of Japanese capabilities.
@@darthcalanil5333 Right. Hitler was more afraid of Japan deciding not to attack the US at this point in the war. So he told them he would declare war too if they attacked. Unfortunately for Adolf the Japanese didn't tie up the Americans as much as he hoped.
@@CarrotConsumer I think like many in the German government at the time a covert enemy was better than an active one. Hitler screwed up.
Your argument that Roosevelt was the direct kind of guy who would put the Pacific Fleet in Manila if he was trying to bait the Japanese does not sit well with your assertion that he was sitting back waiting for somebody to give him a war. He was already shooting at the Germans in the Atlantic. He needed an actual formalization which the American public would buy. He was the exact opposite of a "direct kind of guy". He was pushing every obtuse button he could find trying to get a bite from either the Japanese or the Germans that he could sell.
The day of the battleship was not over, rather the dominance of the battleship was. And raising and repairing the U.S. battleship fleet sunk in harbor would have been impossible in the Phillippines during ww2 but not in Hawaii as was planned.
The effectiveness of the Allied bombing effort is one of those very interesting questions historically because its efficacy can really depend on the criteria you set.
If we approach the question with the mindset of the 1930s / 40s and the dominant ideas of Douhet and that strategic bombing could win the war alone, especially by "breaking" the population, I think we can all agree that that didn't happen. I present this because this was the argument that was largely used by Harris for much of the war, and it was the impetus for much of the bombing. No country which was bombed surrendered because their population's morale broke, and while we could have a discussion about the atomic bombings, it would be more interesting to have that discussion (as I'm sure it will happen endless times) closer to those events.
However I don't think we can dismiss the efficacy of Allied bombing because it didn't achieve its stated goals.
As the comment to which Spartacus replied stated, there were definitely tangential effects on Germany based on the bombing. The effort required in defending against the bombing, the effort in rebuilding factories, or in scattering production facilities and transporting more goods on a wider scale meant that even when Germany was making up the numbers, it was still being hampered. In my mind however the entire question is somewhat moot on this point, because the moment the war became a war of attrition (I would argue this would be after the Fall of France at the earliest and following the failure of Barbarossa at the latest), there was no way they would win. Assuming they can build more tanks and planes, they would still not have enough manpower and fuel to actually keep all of that going. Whatever the Allies do here by bombing production and workers ultimately just translates into ending the war faster, since Germany only has finite resources and is thus forced to expend them faster.
The one aspect of strategic bombing which I don't believe is discussed enough however is the impact it has on a post-war country. I don't mean on their economy, but on the psychology of the civilians who were bombed. All the populations who were bombed during the war endured the bombing and hardship in the hope of victory or at least in the hope that it would end. For those who were on the victorious side, the bombing was a test of endurance and something which they thought ultimately made them stronger (spirit of the Blitz etc). For the vanquished, especially since the bombing of German and Japanese cities was far more destructive and far more wholesale across the country, I believe a case could be made that it helped to cement their loss and to deter them from future aggression, knowing what they had gone through and that it was ultimately for nothing.
This is why it has been important in modern total war for a populace to know they have been defeated. Had the First World War continued into 1919 as various Allied leaders wanted it to, the German people would have known they were defeated when they saw the Allies marching through their cities. However, they did not experience this, and thus so much of the falsehood around their WWI could be made believeable. In WWII, when a German or Japanese civilian looked around his or her destroyed city, saw the occupying forces there, and felt the pains of loss, hunger, defeat, and occupation, then there was no way they would not know they were defeated.
Anyway all that to say, history in a vacuum sounds like a great series if you have a historian in a vacuum cleaner or similar imagery.
40% spent on Germany's air defence vs 3% on mobile armament tells its own story. WW2 turned from an offensive war of Blitzkrieg land grabs to a defensive campaign by 1942, and this would only be compounded as the war progressed. Holding territory from Calais to North Africa requires exponentially more manpower and arms than taking it.
@@borderlands6606 That latter point is something of a recurring theme with empires across the globe throughout history, perhaps the best example in regards to European history being the Roman Empire itself.
@Petros
Oh, that's an interesting aspect I hadn't considered yet...!
Thanks for sharing :)
I just wonder what effect could have had 500-700 more bombers with the new short wawe RADARs sooner in 1942 , when the allies lost many million tons of merchant ships.
@@r.ladaria135
Sinking U-boats (or at least scaring them off and thus saving the convoys) would definitely do a LOT more than burning civilians to death in their sleep 👀
Regarding Spartacus'(s?) comments on the bombing campaign:
From what I've absorbed on that particular topic, the bombing of industry was largely a failure strategically, and area bombing had limited if any success as well. However, in early 44 the american bombing effort changed tactics from a general strategy of 'crippling the german war economy' to a very specific goal of 'force the luftwaffe to engage and destroy them'. This was because the planning of Overlord required allied air supremacy over the invasion corridor, and to do that the german air force had to be crippled. In that role, the bombing campaign was incredibly successful, as evidenced by the attrition rates in early 44(particularly during Operation Argument.)
The book Big Week by James Holland has a superb account of this change in strategy, and the internal 8th Air Force documents at the time corroborate the priority change.
Effectively, the strategic bombing of ground targets on its own was never very effective, either in Europe or in Asia, but was successful in forcing the enemy to waste pilots intercepting them at a rate they could not replenish.
As an aside I'd also like to thank Indy for so thoroughly crushing that dumb talking point about FDR, it's annoyingly prevalent.
Leveling the cities of your enemy in a major war is a significant deterrent against future wars. I doesn't matter much if the current war is made slightly shorter or slightly longer. We can see the echo of this principle in the contemporary concept of "Strategic Warfare", and we can see the practice of this concept in the Second World War by the manner in which cities were being destroyed well after the decision point of the war had passed, and in some controversial cases, in places which were obviously intended to be seen at close quarters by potential future enemies. If the "mushroom cloud" had not become the iconic image of terror in the post-war world, we were still being educated about the "fire storm" which would have sufficed for the purpose...
@@gregorywade1559 I think it's hard to argue FDR wasn't anticipating joining the war, and I agree that he was trying to lay the groundwork for American involvement. But as Indy said, there's no way that FDR had foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor specifically. The literature is clear on this, and the timeline doesn't work.
@@flipthebird1262 I don't disagree, but without documentation in front of me that sound like ex-post-facto justification of things that weren't planned with that much nuance.
If you can show me something saying the idea of something like Dresden was to deter a future war, I'm willing to buy it, but it strikes me as more likely driven by revenge. There is also the fact that they have all this equipment ready to go, just leaving it sitting around waiting for the germans to surrender just isn't going to happen even if the war is effectively over at that point.
Early war strategic bombing didn't have much impact, but as tactics and technology was refined, factories were able to be hit at greater numbers. The strategic bombing campaign on Japan was especially effective.
@@Tech_Renegade You don't need such specific words, and you're unlikely to find them written down. I agree that to some extent the strategic bombing campaign evolved and took on a life and momentum of its own. At some point the justification for targeting civilian infrastructure has to be justified by the understanding that in a total war they are supporting an enemy government in wartime, and in doing so they have become legitimate targets. Beyond that, the technology and methodology which evolved in tandem, was trending towards the ideal of the "fire storm", which was essentially the ability to obliterate an entire city at will using a fleet of bombers. The concept had been refined and the ability to complete the task within a single day was clinically demonstrated at Dresden, a city which had been previously untouched, and was known to be soon occupied by the Red Army. When considered in this way, the arrival of the atom bombs was really just a more efficient refinement of this demonstrated "city killing" ability. There is no question that the capability being demonstrated here was intended to deter future wars, just as any other demonstration of military competence would be, and the targeting of civilians was with equal certainty intended to remind civilians of the future, that any support of militarism would carry a price for themselves.
"FDR Knew about Pearl Harbor?!", My understanding he was told by his intelligence circle that there was a high possibility of a Japanese attack, just no-one knew where, Philippines? Midway? Pearl Harbour? Guam? It is the sort of thing where you sensibly tell your intelligence staff, "OK, we will start preparations, but can't do much until you find out more".
The Japanese had caught the Russian Navy by surprise in port in that war they had in, perhaps 1905. So they had a history of treacherous behavior.
The subject of a devastating attack on Peal Harbor had been the subject of pop culture entertainment like comic books and pulp type "Dime novels" in Japan for years. So it should have been anticipated to some degree.
@@celticman1909 Flying saucers attacking NYC and DC with death rays and a zombie apocalypse have also been part of pop culture for decades. I doubt the military has been preparing for them.
And our military in the case of airpower lined up all the planes to make enemy attacks on them as effective as possible.
@@katey1dog 1. Everything is "aging". Don't denigrate the ships. They were what was available by the decision of Congress and the President. The battleships were moored there due to constraints of the harbor.
From various docos about Duško Popov, the Japanese were very interested in the British attack on Taranto. This got back to the Brits, and Popov was sent to warn the U.S.. Unfortunately, Hoover didn't trust him and seemed to never pass the information on. Logically, if the Japanese were interested in how the Brits crippled the Italian fleet in a harbour, there was only one logical place for the Japanese attack. Then there were all the blunders by the U.S.
I was going to do a paper on pearl harbor back in highschool. My teacher was tired of those types of papers so she made me do one on this topic. I've been hoping you guys would address this and glad you did!
Wow, this time you really picked out some comments that needed some answering. Well Done!
For the first question I feel like it is almost more interesting (and less ridiculous) to look at the American war preparations which clearly showed that the government wanted to go to war and as you said the B-17 and oil embargo to put a lot of pressure on Japan and the support of Britain was quite an antagonizing act against Germany. The attack on Pearl Harbor was definitely a surprise but I dont think the Japanese attacking somewhere (or the Germans starting to torpedo more American ships) was a surprise to the government.
And it shows that Roosevelt and his crew were actually quite smart to maximize chances of the US getting drawn into the war without actually attacking someone (officially) first. And being surprised that your enemy manages to somewhat secretly send their fleet across 6500km to attack you in 1941 really is not that surprising.
You literally missed the part where the US Navy (FDR was formerly in charge of it) began active combat operations in mid 1941 and began to attack uboats as a part of convey escorts. The 2 US Navy destroyers were torpedoed while actively attacking uboats.
The American commanders in the Pacific anticipated Japanese hostililty and made preparations to combat it as much as they could. I will also not ignore the racism and underestimating Japanese military strength that the West felt toward the Japanese at that time. It cost the European and American nations dearly with this mindset at the beginning of the Pacific War.
@Rob I did not say such thing. Roosevelt‘s government could not actively go to war. Neither the public nor congress supported it. Mid 1941 for the first time even a slight majority of Americans supported intervening somehow
With regards to civilian bombing in 1942 specifically: I think that one other important criteria to evaluate the bombings under is their effects on Allied morale. As we've seen in recent weeks, the Axis forces seem to be pushing across Russia with terrifying speed, the Japanese are running amok in the Pacific (with one notable exception Midway through the year), submarines are terrorizing the Atlantic, and in North Africa the British are losing even when they have superior numbers. For the British to be able to say "look, we can smash German cities and they can't stop us" may have had enormous importance in keeping up civilian (and for that matter, military) belief in eventual victory. It is however a very difficult thing to quantify.
That may be true. However, imagine if you had been sending those bombers across the Atlantic to sink U-Boats and save lives, or bombing all the harbor installations where the Kriegsmarine was hiding to attack Russia bound convoys, or if you had somehow been able to deploy them in North Africa to relentlessly bomb the DAK into the ground ? You might have been able to show many more victories to your people and things could have gone on differently, while the enemy would STILL have to spend the money and effort on replacing their losses.
Bombing civilians usually has them siding with their current leader, regardless of who they are. The best way to deal with an enemy is to deal with his infrastructure and his armies. If the Allies had done so, maybe, just maybe, this war would have been won a bit sooner. But that's just speculation.
@@Damorann The allies did take care of the enemy armies and infrastructure but in the sense that once the armies were destroyed, the civilian infrastructure was the last thing to destroy (after military and industrial buildings).
I had a relative (great uncle) who was a bomber pilot in ww2. His plane was shot down over Magdeberg Germany in July 1944. Only one person survived, the co pilot. He was in the 392nd bomber group, 579th heavy bomber squadron. These videos provide an insight to that time and are much appreciated.
Indy talking about “History doesn’t happen in a vacuum” and Sparty talking about the effects of strat bombing reminds me of an argument my History professor had with a student. The students read an alt history book about WWII and made wild assumptions based on them. The professor responded with a very apt phrase I’d like to quote; “History makes good Alternative History, but Alternative history doesn’t make good History.”
Most alternative history fiction is crap for exactly that reason imo. It's always totally wild assumptions.
Great works guys !! Thanks a lot ! And yes more debunking conspiration theories are very much needed in these days !!!
"British spelling of harbour..." The correct spelling for the rest of the world. :P
@@filster1934 Oh to be a fly on the wall for that lol
The US spelling is harbor - the other version is not the British version, it's the 'not US' version - it's the US that changed the spellings of many words (color/harbor/flavor/labor etc) - it's mainly due to Webster, the dictionary guy. There is a bullshit idea going round that spelling hadn't been codified at that time...but it's BS - Webster wanted to simplify the language.
Anyway - Pearl Harbor is spelled Pearl Harbor in the UK, not Pearl Harbour. Anyone using harbour is just being a dick. It's a name and you don't change a name (proper noun) to a different spelling just because your local spelling of a geographical feature is different.
Excellent concept in addition to your actual content, which is superb. Comment sections (in TH-cam in general) are such a cesspool of misinformation that I think it's a great idea to address some of them - both good and bad - in dedicated videos.
my respect for these great historians grows more and more after each episode like this. The poignant and succinct way in which questions are respected and answered is fabulous. Many of the debates we had in history class years ago are answered very well here. Kudos to you chaps.
"History doesn't Happen in a Vacuum" would also be great for handling so many of the 'what if' myths too.
Like 'what if' Longstreet went around 'to the right' at Gettysburg...easily dispelled by just walking the ground. There is no way to launch a supported attack to the south of the round tops...and the whole, 'redeploy after the first day' idea is shown to be similarly daft as an examination of the road network and the Army of Northern Virginia's supply situation makes clear.
Fully agree with Indy here about Pearl Harbor. It was immaterial whether FDR knew or did not know that an attack would come at Pearl. The wise man places his forces in positions where he believes them to be both protected and capable of hitting the enemy hard. Prior to 7th December, the location of the bombers and the fleet were generally deemed to be safe places. That they were not safe does not imply that those who put them there INTENDED them to be in danger. It just means that mistakes were made.
The fleet and bombers were forward deployed to add leverage to the American negotiations to end the war in China. Arguing that they were intentionally allowed to be destroyed to somehow ensure that the US would win is just...silly reasoning. In order to win the war you would allow the weapons you believe will win you the war will be destroyed so that you can win the war? It's daft.
I would love a monthly series of history doesn't come in a vacuum, if it was a joke please make it real, would be really interesting I think
I agree that does sound interesting.
i agree
Indy’s answer is somewhat similar to the answer to people saying, “Hitler shouldn’t have invaded the USSR!”.
Just as egregious as Germany's puported justification for invading the USSR (Teh Sovits uhre planing an invaeshun)...
I've always found that armchair argument very strange. Hitler was talking about the inevitability of invading the USSR for 20 years. There's no universe anywhere where he wouldn't.
@@umjackd yea. The only reason for it not to happen would be him dying somewhere before 1941
He opened another front in the war.
It is not that he should not have invaded the USSR.
Germany should have dealt with England first.
Germany started a fight with the world's largest navy, the largest army and his allies started one with the country with the largest potential economy at the time.
@@umjackd One politician that kept his promises had to be Hitler -_-
This was a really good episode! Having a more detailed discussion to only a couple questions was more like listening to a history professor speak freely about their interests
Thanks for educating me about concept of "history doesnt happen in a vacuum". Expanded my thinking about everything!
Gotta say this animations really made me laugh at the start. Very well done episode by all involved, can't speak highly enough of all your efforts
6:23 You already have that series: it’s called “Cats On Vacuum Cleaners”. History happens _on_ a vacuum, not in it!
I would love to see the " History Doesn't Happen in a Vacuum" series
Plezsz make "History doesnt happen in a vacuum" a real thing I loved that section
They can also call it "History doesn't suck".
Excellent and intelligent video! I really love that you take on these "real but inconvenient facts" deniers directly. As a young history undergrad (a million years ago) I wrote an essay speculating about the possibility that FDR knew about the attack and allowed it to happen. However, further digging, including a visit to Pearl Harbour and books by Gordon Prange straightened me out.
What is lamentable, both in the study of history or attitudes towards current political or social events is the refusal of some people to accept clear facts that contradict their pet beliefs. Again, outstanding!
FDR wanted a war, the embargo all but guaranteed it. Same man who confiscated people's gold....
Gordon Prange's info on radio silence is outdated now. See George Victor's The PH Myth please. With the release of FOIA docs in 1979 we know the US was able to read the IJN messages.
Actually Finnish Air Force attacked Pearl Harbor. That happened because gigantic herring ate Fighter Squadron 22 and vomited it out after drifting from Baltic Sea to Pacific Ocean. Those fighter planes are heavy. Then without being able to contact their superiors the decided to attack obviously Soviet naval base. Low sun had yellowish color and glare forced pilots to squint their eyes so they looked Japanese.
It all make sense maybe Atlantis even provided their bases for refulling
Damn I like to drill this herring. Will make a hell of a Birmarckbrötchen!
@@Snp2024 No mention of that. Japanese took the blame because it worked well with their plans and do you think there wouldn't be world-wide panic if existence of giant herrings capable of eating whole fighter squadron bases would be made public. Same missing squadron also attacked Tokyo in following April and this time United States took the blame as it worked with their plans. Jimmy Doolittle was drunk sailor (in sailor standards) who was labeled as mastermind of that move.
@@vksasdgaming9472 truly diabolical
@@Snp2024 More like inelegant blundering about with nobody knowing what has happened and trying to appear much more competent than they really are.
Two excellent responses to two exceptional questions. Sparty's response to the question of strategic bombing was especially important since it shows that he is a serious historian, willing to listen to counterarguments, assess the facts in chronological context, and do in depth analysis to test his own theories. This is a crucial part of the War Against Humanity series since we are seeing today an unprecedented rise in antisemitism worldwide coupled with an increase in Holocaust denial. By presenting the facts in context and not "history in a vacuum" with critical analysis, War Against Humanity provides one of the best means for defeating the Holocaust deniers. Thanks again for your excellent work.
Not really since there was no law that was ratified by the waring nations that prevented bombing of civilian targets in enemy territory.
This was remarkable!!! "If I want something to be true, then it is possible, and not that difficult, to reverse-engineer a timeline of events that supports that preconceived conclusion." This sums up so much of the poison in today's politics and news. I really hope our nation can last in a world where so much misinformation spreads like wildfire on the internet. Let's always keep our ears open and our minds critical of various viewpoints. We must keep our minds open. 🤠
Good episode. Also to be noted with regard to FDR and the Pearl Harbor attack is that FDR was a Navy man through and through. There is no reason to think that he would have knowingly let the Pacific Fleet get destroyed at anchor. Also, Gordon Prange, who spent his whole adult life studying the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor and interviewed hundreds of Americans and Japanese with knowledge of the event, found no evidence that FDR had foreknowledge of the attack, much less that he let it happen.
Very good episode! Indy, your treatment of Pearl Harbor was both informative and amusing. Of course, the thing is, if Roosevelt had known about the impending attack on Pearl Harbor, he also would have known about the impending attack on the Philippines and, being the James Bond villain level evil genius that he was, he would have let both attacks happen, right?
Spartacus, I am very impressed with your acknowledging that your opinion about the effectiveness of strategic bombing is just that, a scholarly, informed opinion, subject to argument and revision. So many scholars nowadays regard themselves as holders of absolute and undeniable truth. I am curious though, I know that German war production increased through most of the war despite the bombing, but has anyone ever attempted to analyze how much *more* it might have increased had there been no bombing at all?
Great reply Indi! I have bought the possibility that the Japanese code had been broken earlier than it has been admitted. Remember that for security reasons, the story about the breaking of the code surfaced decades after the end of the war. However, you are right that knowledge about the attack on Pearl Harbour (and the Philippines,) could have been information used to an advantage, and the attack could have still been used as a "causus belli". The main point is that knowing about the attack wouldn't have prevented it, it would have only reduced its damage.
I love those videos - thank you very much.
And the "History does'nt happen in a vacuum"-Series? Sounds fascinating! Not just because of the abbreviation Hdhiv or Hdnhiav.
I would love to watch the “History Doesn’t Happen in a Vacuum” series. Extra points to Indy for shushing the conspiracy theorists. 😆
I would be very interested in learning what goes on inside my Dirt Devil every time I turn it on.
After "History is not written by the winners" is going to be my new favourite quote
I agree, would love to see such a series!!
"If in the course of my continued research, and the exposure of the chronology, I am shown to be wrong, I will change my opinion." Damn, Spartacus! What a rare and honest attitude. I wish everyone was that honest. We might learn something from each other. Kudos to you, sir.
Excellent episode! Really a very important part of your work i feel!
The carrier argument always amuses me. They do realize that it was the lack of battleships following the attack on Pearl Harbor that led to the US navy using carriers, and realizing that they were actually quite useful? Before ww2, carriers were little more than a military novelty
5:41 Please be mindful of the WWI generals who sent their soldiers in winter into the mountains without proper winter equipment. I'm not naming names, but they exist.
In WWI, lots of dumb things were done.
There was this one episode where French soldiers dressed in RED trousers (i.e. their uniform) and were sent onto the battle field.
90,000 of these guys lay dead after the battle - many on account of their conspicuous trousers.
The 101 Airborne to Bastogne?
I would love “history does not happen in a vacuum”
you asked me what i think . i think you are people are doing a bloody fantastic job AND we are incredibly fortunate to have you. that's what i think .
Thank you for the kind words! It is we who are the fortunate ones since we have such supportive fans! Cheers
I just want to say that I have immense respect for the both of you. Both of your answers to the comments posed in this episode are superb, and I appreciate both your answers. Especially in the case of Spartacus, as it's very rare to find someone who so readily admits the possibility of their being mistaken while also holding firmly to their beliefs by way of factual evidence. Well done as always, all of you.
Roosevelt could have fended off the attack at Pearl Harbor and Americans at home would’ve just as outraged and even more eager to fight. Hence, he didn’t know about it. One mans opinion.
This!
Yep had he known he could have laid a trap.
Sailed the fleet and put them in position to sink the Japanese fleet.
Then sail straight for the Japanese home islands and begin the shelling.
You do remember that Adm. Kimmel was complaining to Washington about the latter stripping weapons from the ships to lend to Britain...
@@shawnr771 Except for the fact that the Americans only had two carriers in the pacific at the time, the American torpedoes did not work, and the divebomber crews were inexperienced at the time.
@@erikrungemadsen2081 The US did have a pretty good sized contingent of battleships.
I want to hear about the theory that Stalin was preparing for a preemptive offensive against Germany when the Germans invaded. I've heard a good amount about it, but no where near enough to believe it.
Hitler's intentions towards the USSR were no secret to anyone. It's literally in his book that was selling everywhere. So Stalin knew that a German attack is probably coming. The Soviets were equally an expansionist regime. They invaded numerous countries from Finland to Romania, and they too were intending to expand their sphere of influence into central Europe. War was inevitable, but the question was WHEN.
The soviets rather accurately estimated (probably through their spies) that Germany won't be ready for an invasion until 1942 at the earliest. I say accurately because the german rearmament plan and the generals themselves were arguing with Hitler in1939 that the Wehrmacht won't be ready for war until 1942. Moreover, Stalin thought that Germany will not attack until they finish the war with the UK. On the Soviet side, they too were in the middle of rearmament and mobilisation, especially after the purges, so they too were not ready.
I'm unsure about a soviet preemptive strike. The evidence suggests that both nations were priming for a war of aggression regardless, and the germans happened to prepared faster (thanks to the conquests of Austria, Czechoslovakia and France).
Soviet were wary but stalin purges weakened army which Germany easily overran till red army prepared and fought back after winter
@@CK-nh7sv they were wary but purges weakened them
@@CK-nh7sv I just said that. Having the intention for war is one thing, and being prepared for one is another. The soviets were clearly not prepared as they were caught in the middle of their huge reorganisation and rearmament of the army.
PS: That is because there is not a shred of credible evidence to support it. It's another WWII Urban Myth.
"History does not happen in a vacuum" : Sorry everything that happens in space, you didn't make the cut.
Facts don't care a bout your feelings.. classic quote from Ben Shapiro... love it. Look him up. TE Fidler
Space isn't a perfect vacuum, to be fair.
make it a series
PLEASE please PLEASE please PLEASEEEEE do a series on how history is not a vacuum!!!!
Your presentation style, calm and factually, is exactly what is needed today. It's also palatable to those who disagree.
I made a post on my Facebook asking people to watch this video before you had even finished your explanation! I've had this "FDR was eViL" conversation so many times with young people in conservative settings- uhg.
Combatting conspiracy, is something that nobody really does- and ya'll would be SO GOOD AT IT.
Please, spread your rationality and sense. It is in such desperate short supply.
A few thoughts:
1. I've seen a number of analysts say that the western Allies' strategic bombing against Germany was a success - not because it destroyed civilian morale or destroyed production capacity - but because it kept the Luftwaffe over Germany and not over the battlefields, thus giving the Western Allies (and the Russians) air superiority over the battlefields (e.g., the famous "only two Luftwaffe fighters over Normandy on D-Day" thing). These analyses credit the disappearance of the Luftwaffe over the battlefields as having shortened the war by at least a year. Your thoughts please.
2. A number of comments to this video say in effect "well Roosevelt and the top brass knew something was coming but they didn't know where" and imply that not much was done to warn Pearl Harbor and the Philippines. I believe that there were a number of warnings, but they were ignored by the commanders at Pearl, the Philippines, etc. For example, there was the message sent to Admiral Kimmel and General Short in late November warning of an impending attack "somewhere". Since their combined staffs decided that some ridiculous number of planes and ships would have been needed to detect an incoming attack, Kimmel and Short basically did nothing. Congressional hearings after the war suggested that sufficiently effective early warning systems could have been established with the resources available. They wouldn't have been perfect and its possible the Japanese could have still snuck through, but it was judged that such early warning efforts were likely to have detected the incoming attack with enough time to get ships at battle stations, get planes in the air, etc. As for the Philippines, your own episodes have shown that McArthur's air commander(s) just simply didn't do anything. Ignored the warnings. Refused to establish any sort of combat air patrol. Refused to establish any long range search, etc. Basically handed the Japanese carte blanche to destroy most of the planes on the ground. Again, I would appreciate your thoughts.
Of course, then there's the question of whether the B-17s in the Philippines would have been effective. General Marshal may have loved them, but high altitude level bombers were pretty ineffective against ships underway, such as at Midway.
Not to mention the argument of carriers being held back because of their importance is also ripe with hindsight. Carriers for the US became the default core of the navy because it was arguably all we had left. Before Pearl, carriers were only a part of the battle line, and their post-Pearl importance would have been only a practicing theory before the "main force" was lying on the bottom of its anchorage.
It wasn't even part of the battle line, it was an auxiliary force. Even Yamamoto thought that way - the Pearl Harbor attack was just an elaborate and expanded version of the traditional Japanese strategy of using aircraft, submarines, torpedo boats, and any other available forces to whittle down the enemy battle fleet so the Japanese would have a numerical advantage when the decisive battleship slugging match finally happened.
6:31 that'd be hilarious! A great way to dismay myths about the Second World War which have come under intense scrutiny in recent years
@@user-otzlixr Is that the Great Leander that we can’t see!
Is that Jong Cena?
i agree
Whether FDR knows it or not, the fact Japan screwed up their diplomacy made them the enemy in this scenario. A textbook case of "not disturbing your enemy that made a mistake". And to hit home how much of a screw up Pearl Harbor is, Hideki Tojo privately celebrated the failure because it means the blame will now fall squarely on the IJN...
"Japan screwed up their diplomacy"
Completely wrong. Elements in the Japanese government were trying in good faith to negotiate with the United States but the FDR administration refused every opportunity. They backed Japan into a corner
@@airborneace they 'backed japan into a corner" only because they refused supplies and materials that would have allowed japan to continue to prosecute their war in asia.
@@TheDancingHyena look at what the US did to the Philippines and tell me again with a straight face that we suddenly had moral qualms about atrocities in Asia
@@airborneace it’s not so much about moral qualms as it is about the fact japan was waging a brutal war of aggression against a friendly Asian nation to the US and openly challenging US and European interests in the pacific, also the Phillipines were about to be given independence in 1944, but thanks to the oh so kind Japanese invasion which killed hundreds of thousands of innocent Phillipine civilians, they had to wait until 1946 to get independence
@@airborneace The Japanese government had the long term plan of removing all Western presence in South East Asia and the Pacific under the co-prosperity sphere even if it may have interested them to temporarily leave certain countries at peace (such as the USSR) but their goal was a regional empire under Japanese subjugation. They were most certainly not negotiating in good faith, they saw the US as a thorn to be removed from the area just as much as Britain, France and the Netherlands, and it was just a question of time. The US's refusal to be duped just sped up the time in which they thought they would deal have to deal with it. Certainly they would have liked the US to have continued to buy their story for long enough to take out the other countries and empires in the region in order to later pick of the US territories in detail.
I would love a “history doesn’t happen in a vacuum” series
Woah, this format feels so different from the normal week-to-week episodes, which mainly are listing facts. Here opinions are discussed in regard to a big picture. I really like this, a truly fresh breeze into a suffocating ww2 atmosphere.
Thank you!
We’re so happy you enjoyed!
@@WorldWarTwo you're very welcome! Btw, are you going to cover the famine in Vietnam caused by the Japanese? As you see, I'm 2 years behind the "current" events, and at the speed of 1 vid per day I can only hope to catch up before V-day. Since the Vietnamese starvation period that killed 2 million+ people began Oct44, there's a high chance I'll miss the opportunity to request for it.
Cheers for adressing the thesis. I think Douglas Horne's book "deception intrigue and the road to war" makes a case that would require a more serious rebuttal than the one made here (there's an article I read somewhere that sums his stance up brlliantly) and there are different alternative explanations for leaving the b 17s in the Philippines, like not wanting to reveal American knowledge of Japanese codes. Furthermore when evaluating such a move, cynical as it was (if it played out the way Horne suggests) we might still come to the conclusion that it was the only politically viable way to bring his isolationist public around to entering a just and necessary conflict....
If the forces on Hawaii and the Philippines had been prepared for the Japanese attack, if the ships had left the harbor and the Japanese planes had been met in the air by American planes and turned back, if the raid on Pearl Harbor had been a Japanese disaster, it would still have resulted in America declaring war on Japan.
the japanese would stil have invaded the philipines but most importantly they already send their declaration of war.
Without the casualties, bringing an isolationist public opinion in favor of war for remote colonies (the US national territory began then in California, Hawaii was a territory, as was Alaska, a lot of people don't even know the USA controlled Philippines for half a century even) would have been quite complicated. You need martyrs in order to make the need for war clear to the masses, like in 9-11.
@@LuisAldamiz the isolationiat period was essentially half a century long, but the USA still managed to get embroiled in the Spanish American war with a much smaller trigger.
@@wbertie2604 - It was a very similar case: US troops "murdered" by the evil other (a very clear case of self-attack but transformed by the monopolist media into a war-triggering scandal).
@@wbertie2604 That was somewhat different. US policy was not tolerant of European powers mucking about in the Americas. It was easier to get public opinion on board to fight the Spanish Empire.
Germany never had enough oil. Strategic bombing reduced the amount they could get to their units.
Building bombers costs resources and manpower.
Building bombs costs resources and manpower.
Fuiling and maintaining the bombers costs resources.
Shot down bombers did also cost resources and human lives.
No one disagrees, that strategic bombing has some kind of effect.
But the more important question is: Was it worth the spend resources? Or would it have been better to let the Wehrmacht have their meager oil-rations and instead hit them with the now available resources somewhere where it did hurt them more?
Germany never had an oil problem. It's a myth.
@@Translucent73 i would love to see your justification of that statement. Every history i have read focusses on the strategic, tactical and training impact of fuel shortages from 1943 onwards. And the whole of German strategy in 1942 was centred around oil. Plus you have Speer’s testimony (fwiiw).
@@Translucent73 Germany may have had more oil then many think, but there was not enough transport capacity to bring in to the front. So the german army had an oil problem. Fall Blau (the attack on the Soviet Union in 1943) stalled at mulitple points because they could not get enough fuel to the tanks. And had to halt whole Panzer armies.
@@bastisonnenkind German transport to the eastern front was largely by rail which used much less oil per supply type transported than trucking. 1943 was Germany's largest fuel producing year to fuel Germany's largest vehicle production year. German supply problems at the Battle of Kursk was due to tactical supply cutting and air bombardments of German supply lines by the Soviets, and certainly not because the German army had little fuel stockpiled at rear depots in preparation for the offensive which you seem to imply.
Please do History Doesn't Happen In a Vacuum. One of your best videos on this channel based on the PH answer alone, and both answers were equally phenomenal. As someone with professional experience in history, I deeply enjoy seeing the crew directly engage with popularly debated points that don't hold up to professional scrutiny.
Anything that helps cut through the chaff conspiracy mongers keep throwing up is appreciated. I was talking to a guy who thought Hitler was just acting preemptively when he launched Barbarossa. I was so happy to enlighten him thanks to one of your episodes.
If I can ask a viewer question. How did each warring nation deal with PTSD among the troops. With the size and scope of the war the amount of people who took part ..
These is an excellent documentary from 1946 by John Huston called "Let There Be Light" on U.S. soldiers being treated for PTSD. You can watch here on TH-cam.
"How did each warring nation deal with PTSD among the troops"
Poorly... as they've been doing with every war before or since.
They didn't.
I don't think the term existed - it was called shell shock, combat exhaustion and similar.
I just used it because its a term that most people recognize.
I have PTSD from my time in service. Its a daily struggle I deal with each case each case is unique to the individual as to how and why.
Mine probably more so than others.
But you are 100% correct I just wasn't sure which term would be period correct.
I ask because the vastness of the totality of WW2.
So many fronts so many different attributes so many lives impacted in ways that its profoundly mind boggling to soak it all in.
For every number is a face.. a story .. a life..
A limited series on historical myths would be amazing.
Yeah the Myth is that it was unexpected!
In a video made for TH-cam by the Imperial War Museum concerning what is widely regarded as the finest tank destroyer of WWII, the Jagdpanther, it is stated that less than a quarter of the planned number of those vehicles were manufactured as a result of Allied strategic bombing. Is that correct?
Difficult to say. The fact is that Germany produced much less than they initially planned to do.
Now how much of that can be attributed to the bombing would be difficult to quantify. Unless there are specific bombing hits on production facilities it could also be because of the general scarcity of ressources.
Ball bearing factories damaged caused alot of issues.
Hard to say. Primarily because German tank production is held back by Nazi policy of not adopting US style manufacturing techniques out of ideological (Hitler and Todt hates how efficient the assembly line is in making goods) and labor reasons (part of a multi-pronged plan to "reduce" unemployment, along with barring women from the workforce)...
yes, and also most of the planned King Tiger tank production never happened because of the bombing. The question is: how much does it matter whether they were produced or not? Even the few hundred that did make it to their units most of the time barely had the oil and logistics to keep them operational. Even then, compared to the tens of thousands of other vehicles in the Wehrmacht, it would have made little difference whether a tank destroyer battalion received a Jagdpanther or a StuG.
@@chickenfishhybrid44 My understanding is that ball bearing shortages weren't terribly significant.
As I'm sure Indy/Spartacus are already aware, the Allied top level commanders were pretty well convinced after the successful liberation of Sicily and invasion of Italy in 1943 that their victory was inevitable. While their timeline wasn't super accurate (they expected victory in late 1944), they still knew they were going to win. I'd day that weighs heavily in Spartacus's favor that the Allied area bombing campaign was unnecessary.
Just wanted to say, you guys are doing an amazing job. all the power to you!!!
Professor Indy telling off the wise ass student for asking a dumb question. Love it
I'm generally someone who thinks the Japanese side of WWII history is one that is sorely overlooked, and is swirling in myths, generalizations, and misunderstandings. But even elementary academic reading on the subject proves FDR could not have known about Pearl Harbor, even the Japanese government's own ambassador to the US did not know about it until after it had already happened, to illustrate the level of secrecy the operation was under.
I was even a bit intrigued by this theory at first, as FDR stood everything to gain politically from letting such an attack happen had he known of it, but the facts make it nearly impossible for FDR to have known of Pearl Harbor in advance.
@@highenergyv276 This is just patently false. The Japanese took extreme caution with who was allowed knowledge of the Pearl Harbor attack, only higher-ups of the Imperial military staff and the emperor and some of his aids knew, Ambassador Nomura and Special Envoy Kurusu, the ranking diplomats to the US, were not aware. They received an encrypted radiogram breaking diplomatic relations and declaring war only hours before the attack while the staff were still on Sunday holiday. Said radiogram could not be decrypted and delivered before the attack occurred.
The intercepted Japanese diplomatic cables were only fractional pieces of everything, and even if they had all been intercepted and decoded, would only hint that something big may be building up, nothing specific or damning. Said messages were however intercepted and marked "low priority" anyway, and not analyzed by the relevant authorities until after the attack. The US however was noticing the increased traffic and suspicious diplomatic cables, and thus were in the middle of the process of beefing up Pacific defenses, especially those in the Philippines.
The Japanese intended to declare war on the US before the Pearl Harbor attacked, removing the element of surprise. FDR would somehow have to predict ahead of time that Japan would bungle it's own declaration of war to even make this conspiracy work.
@@highenergyv276 When you say "The US Navy sunk a Japanese submarine before the attack happened" you fail to mention this happened literally an hour before the main attack began, as the submarine, a Type A midget submarine, was maneuvering into position to join the attack.
I agree the entire event was extremely politically convenient to FDR, but simple facts and rational analysis show it to clearly be a product of circumstance rather than some grand conspiracy.
@@highenergyv276 Two targets? Try seven. Along with Pearl Harbor and the Philippines, there is still Midway, Guam, Puget Sound in Washington, Los Angeles and San Diego in California...
@@highenergyv276 As for your "nobody ever talks about that", are you new here or something? It was very much talked about on this channel.
I would love you guys to tackle common historical "conspiracy" theories. A sub-series of the Time Ghost Channel. Particularly the MLK and JFK assassinations. Arguments are compelling to see both in different ways than the official narrative. A neutral, factually researched version of events would be awesome! Love your work!
In America, most of WW2 is seen through the lenses of German / American accounts. Having a series dedicated to myth busting, or even seeing how other nations viewed specific events / the war, would be highly informative.
This is so good I had to watch it a couple of times. You guys are getting better every week!! Greetings from Dublin(Ireland).
BTW -Ireland and Finland. A lot more in common than most Irish and Finnish realise. Historically speaking.
I've said for years if FDR knew, the morning of; the fleet could have sailed and the aircraft could be up to engage. As soon as the Japanese got there it was war. And the fleet could have pursued. You don't kill over 2k when you can defend yourself.
He had to sell it to the American people. SImply attacking and not killing a certain number would have been equal to Japan bombing the Panay and the US only asking for money!
Yes please do " history dosen't happen in a vacuum".
"or people who haven't studied a lot of history..." looks like Ol' Indy has had just about of enough of homeschooled historians and conspiracy theorists.
Haven't we all?
and what exactly differentiates Indy from homeschooled, amateur historians? A popular youtube channel? I haven't seen him mention any academic credentials in military history. Everyone is entitled to an opinion but just because you have a successful youtube channel on military history does not make you an authority on the subject. In fact no one has that right. I like the work Indy and his cohorts are doing on this channel but at no point will I ever accept his opinion on specific matters as the end all be all in historic assessment.
He and the rest of the staff do their homework and it shows but so do a hell of a lot of other opinionated people. Keep this in mind. Indy should take care on just how far he wants to push his opinion on the topic. I prefer when he sticks to just reporting the known facts without injecting opinion.
@@a.e.w.384 His lack of an agenda and unbiased presentation of facts is what differentiates him from the people you mentioned.
@@dongately2817 so going out of his way to address "reverse engineering" in this video is not an agenda? :) Don't get me wrong he usually tries to stay indifferent and just report the facts but lately...
@@a.e.w.384 - The war crimes really kick into high gear when Barbarossa starts. I can’t imagine anyone who studies these things being unaffected.
The "History" Channel said Aliens -- aboard the Soviet steamship Uritskii -- helped the Kidō Butai with advanced weather forecasts allowing them to make the trip from the Kuril Islands to Pearl Harbor undetected... Another candid, well-researched and well-produced video from team WW2. Thank you. By far the best channel on TH-cam. Semper Fidelis
I don't doubt the History Channel said that.
It also says Pawn Stars is "reality".
Wow. Just wow. This channel amazes me at every episode.
In 1943, the German Air Force effectively disappeared from the Russin front. They didn't go into a vacuum. They went to fight the USAAF and the RAF in the skies over Germany. That left the German Army, in the east, without effective air cover. If we are to believe that had no effect on the duration and outcome of the war, then we must conclude that the actual fighting had very little effect on the war either. Spartacus, this is more rubbish.
Agree 100%. The resources Germany devoted to combating the bomber offensive, most especially trained, veteran fighter pilots, were absolutely vital and irreplaceable. You cannot overstate the importance of air superiority in World War Two.
Hey thanks for the reply to my comment in video form, it was cool. We already went back in forth on this a lot in the comment section on a video awhile back for anyone that wants to see it. This way we don't need to rehash what was already said. I tried to look for it but can't find it. It was in one of the War Against Humanity videos maybe 1-2 months ago (maybe 3). So everyone is aware I said this reply in reply to something Sparty said in his War Against Humanity video. I wish I could find the video to get the exact quote. But it was something along the lines of "the allied bombing campaign didn't help end the war". Which is what I was disagreeing with. If I find the video I was commenting in and Sparty's exact quote I will edit my comment to show it.
In reply to what you said in this video about the allied bombing not picking up until later in the war. That is true but the Germans were already spending a large percent of their GDP on air defenses prior to the allied bombing becoming large. That is GDP that the Germans could be spending elsewhere such as on infrastructure and supply to the Eastern front. The allied threat against Germany and the rest of the Axis was such that the Germans and other Axis powers started focusing on their air-defense even before things got bad. It was after just a single British bombing raid early in the war that Goring was able to convince Hitler to dedicate even more to air-defense in order to protect their production. It was this air-defense that the Germans still had up early in the war that made the British and the Americans hesitant to launch the massive air-strikes they would send out in later years during the early years of the war. And even while that air-defense was not defending against large amounts of allied bombers the Germans were still spending the GDP to keep it running. There were literally hundrads of thousands and millions later in the war dedicated to running the German air-defense. Those are people that could be doing more useful things to Germany winning the war.
As always keep up the good work!
We have to understand this from a fuel shortage perspective. Whatever fuel Germany can either make synthetically or get from Romania, in 1941 and 1942 goes immediately to the Eastern Front to take the Caucuses oil fields. Some goes to North Africa, a little bit to the Atlantic for the Luftwaffe. But the fuel going to the Atlantic isn't enough for routine operations for air superiority, just enough to react to any raids. As you say, after a single raid Goering wants more static AA defenses. Not because the raid was destructive to production but because the Luftwaffe doesn't have enough fuel to repel the attack mid-air. Static AA defenses without needing fuel to run makes much more sense to build so you can save your precious supplies of limited fuel for either some offensive mission in the Atlantic, ability to respond mid-air to a huge raid, or more importantly, train new pilots as you're losing them fast in Russia.
AA defenses were the infrastructure needed to win the war, but not because the raids were terribly devastating to industry, rather, they were built to free up fuel for the front. Also, AA defenses can be run by civilians and requires little training so its much more cost effective on that score rather than fully maintain Luftwaffe squadrons that have no fuel to fly anyways. Check out the videos that TIK does on the oil crisis, Potential History has a couple, and so does Military History Visualized.
@@hoopsmcgee8272 I have seen the video TIK has done on the oil crises and it is very good. I have seen Potential History and Military History Visualized videos as well. I am very into WW2 so I watch tons of WW2 content on TH-cam in my free time.
Back to the topic though. The amount Germany was spending on their air-defense was not just effecting them in fuel saving ways though. For example, if Germany was not being bombed by the allies they could have spent more on making more trains and extracting more coal from the ground a resource that Germany and the Axis had in abundance (see TIKs video on trains, coal and supply). Also if Germany was not being bombed could have built more supply planes as well to help supply the Eastern front and would have had more fuel to run those planes since they would not have to use a large amount of their air-power defending the territory they already controlled. They would have had a massive amount more fuel to use on the Eastern front if they were not having to operate anywhere from 30-60% or greater of their air-force against the allies at any given time in the war. Or they could have just used the whole of their air-force or the majority of it against the USSR in the East if they didn't need to worry about defending the territory they already controlled. Also without having to use hundreds of thousands of Axis men to man the air-defenses that gives them either more soldiers or more people able to operate the supply lines which could then move those troops up to the front lines. Then there is the medical capacity. If Germans were not being killed and inured via allied bombing runs that allows for more German medical teams to be working on injured Germans on the Eastern front allowing for more lives to be saved there allowing them to put troops back into the field or saving the troops lives and allowing them to go back to Germany to work in a factory or something not along the front lines. The lack of bombing also makes it so the Germans don't need to keep repairing things and finding/building new homes for the de-housed Germans. That allows them to instead build new things rather than repair already built things. So they could instead be laying down more train tracks or building better defenses and so on (the list is really so insanely long). If they had done any of that, that expands how long the war lasts. There really are just so many ways that the bombing campaign affected the Axis that is often not taken into account when people just look at the German production numbers and see that they were increasing in many areas throughout the war.
So to conclude, I don't see how anyone can think about all of that and not believe that the war was shortened via the allied bombing campaigns. Yes, those bombing campaigns killed civilians (don't say innocent civilians because how many German civilians were actually fully innocent?). But instead of those civilians then dying we then have many more American, British, Russian and other allied troops dying because the war is lasting much longer, the Germans have better defenses and are more well armed. Expanding the duration of the war also then leads to the war being fought in Soviet and Polish territory for longer. Leading to them having even more civilians deaths than they already encountered. So then what should the leaders of the allied nations say to the families of their slain family after the war? I'm sorry I didn't want to kill Axis civilians the way they were killing our civilians via bombing campaigns on their homeland. I know that lead to the war lasting longer and lead to your family (the people I represent) dying in greater numbers. But this was the right thing to do. I know if I was the leader of an allied nation I could not tell the families of my people that. That I let our people die in far greater numbers because I didn't want to bomb the people who started the war and started pattern of bombing cities.
I also think that Allied bombing was a huge drain on Germany's limited ressources, however, you should not overlook that it was also a massive burden on the UK, since a massive bomber fleet is very expensive. Basically attritional, asymmetric warfare in the dirtiest way possible. British atrocities differ from German ones only in raw numbers and the fact that German atrocities were generally a burden on their own war effort, while British atrocities benefited their war effort.
@@PhillyPhanVinny The allied bombing campaign had zero effect on the ability to make war on the Eastern Front. Germany could only win in Russia if it captured the oil fields in Maykop, Grozny, and Bakku. Then, if they could keep them secure, transport that crude oil back for refining in Romania at least if not Germany proper. Until that happens, there isn't enough fuel to keep the military advancing. It doesn't matter how many tanks, planes, or trucks a factory can produce if there is no fuel to get them from Dusseldorf to Donetsk. That was the whole point of TIK's video on the oil crisis. In 1941 and 1942, Germany and Romanian oil fields can only produce enough fuel for the Wermacht to operate for about 3 months, in an offensive capacity. You cannot win an offensive war where 75% of the time you have to sit still. And that has nothing to do with factory production of trucks, planes, and panzers but a fact of fuel limitations. Heck, we even saw in the weekly videos back in 1940 that French and Belgian coal miners were going on strike due to wages, working conditions, and hours. The fuel shortage (either coal or petrol) was a factor before Harris even thought about a carpet bombing campaign. And once we use that lens as the critical key of understanding German logistics, it makes complete sense to replace as much fuel using operations in the West with static, non-fueled defenses. Therefore, the AA guns were not a response to Harris but a necessity to make war in Russia in 1941 onwards.
We have seen in the weekly episodes this year that the bombing campaign has had little effect on production and morale in Germany. If a factory is hit it is usually up and running in a couple weeks. At the exact same time, summer offenses have been stalled due to a simple lack of fuel, not a lack of equipment. From 1943 onwards, German production is able to adapt and quickly meet the changes in German military doctrine, changing from offensive "bewegungskrieg" to a static, defensive posture. The Big Cats and tank killers are a direct result of fuel shortages, shorter supply lines, limited offensive operations, and a defensive nature on the Eastern Front, not RAF bombing. If the RAF had been successful in its bombing of industries, how could the German army pivot so well from pincer movements to pill boxes? Because they weren't successful. I would argue that the carpet bombing may have increased the length of the war. As we saw in the weekly videos, back in 1940 the British resolved to stay in the fight, rallied around their King in the rubble of London. Do you think the Germans would be different? Its possible that these raids may have stymied planned strikes, sabotage, riots, as happened in WW1 in Germany in 1917 onward as shortages got bad (which Germany was already experiencing mass shortages in 1940, barely 1 year in, not 4!). As a veteran of the Iraq War, I can tell you civilians do not like indiscriminate death and it will not win over hearts and minds of the population.
The money spent of the AA defenses was necessary to free up fuel for the Eastern Front, not a response to Harris's campaign. Regardless of what Germany produced in war materials, it didn't matter because they didn't have the fuel to ship them from Point A to Point B. Even if the Germans had built thousands of kilometers of tracks in the conquered territories (which they didn't have the fuel to do so), it would have been done in the hope of capturing Russian crude oil, not a guarantee, which any planner or logistician would reject out right. The only sector Germany could have funded that could change its fatal fuel situation would have been sustainable energy, namely solar, wind and nuclear. Solar was in its infancy still and not terribly practical, wind turbines could have been built if the wind conditions are good for it in Central Europe (which I'm not sure they are), and nuclear energy was the research of Jewish physicists, and as such not a science the mustached man regime would use. Also, sustainable energy goes against their ideology, in that, hard work like coal mining and oil rig work made the Germans "superior" to others. To paraphrase Potential History here, the only way Germany can win WW2 is if you change the ideology of the N*zis. And if you do that, then WW2 probably doesn't happen, at least not the way it did in our timeline.
@@michaelkovacic2608 I would strongly disagree that "British atrocities differ from German ones only in raw numbers". German atrocities in WW2 were racial genocide. The British and other allied forces bombing of German and other Axis forces cities was first off a response to German and Japanese actions. And secondly the bombing actions were an effort to shorten the already deadliest war in human history and as a result save lives. For example, if the American nuclear bombings of Japan didn't happen Japan continues the war and forces the Allies to launch the largest invasions in human history of the Japanese main islands. That results in millions more deaths of both Allied and Japanese troops but also Japanese civilians. So for the cost of a few hundreds thousand Japanese civilians versus the deaths of millions of both allied and Japanese that trade is worth it to save lives. That is not something that Germany or Japan were trying to do in their war crimes they committed during WW2.
That was really historically interesting by Spartacus. Can I ask when you believe that this point where it was simply of question of the allies superior supply of resources (if I understand what you're saying right) was reached?
I did some reading on the topic of bombing for an extra extended school project for 1944 onwards about the Luftwaffe over Germany and concluded that despite efforts such as big week and all the bombing it was ineffective as production numbers of aircraft increased. Of course, particularly for the US daylight raids you could probably make arguements about the planes the escorts shot down, but the point still stands.
However, as you said the numbers of planes were irrelevant as it was the loss of trained pilots that killed the Luftwaffe during (I would have said) 1944.
Is that what you are aiming for with your observation, that the axis could not sustain the trained men needed? I hope this comment makes some sense, and thank you for the video!
And how do you think most of those pilots got shot down, where, and by whom?
This was one of my favorite episodes of any series I've seen indy in. Keep doing more of these, please!
You both make very good arguments on these subjects!
This episode is great. You should do one about the Soviet first strike plan controversy also. Is there any merrit to the analysis of Viktor Sovorov?
No, because Suvorov doesn't actually quote anyone or anything. His entire premise is "It is because I said so", and he is the only one saying it, with others actually quoting him. His Icebreaker is intentionally a work of fiction as through controversy he gains the visibility to sell the book and profit.
It is like writing a book saying Nazis went to the far side of the Moon and made a base. It is idiotic, but the inherent controversy of the subject then drives the sales of a book like that - which is the end point, to make money. Also, skilled in the craft know, a topic like that creates a very vocal minority (of idiots) that then goes on and markets your book (or "documentary" or what ever) for free, so all you need to do is write some trash controversial enough and the thing will sell itself.
You can watch in fact any of the Suvorov's "lessons", he never mentions a single source for anything he claims. All that he ever does is present you with a well known fact and then twists it in a way to try and jam it in his narrative that has absolutely no backing in any historical material. And the very fact that he is the only one saying it with all others saying it actually only quoting Suvorov himself, should tell you that there is no historical merit in it.
@@Wustenfuchs109 Far right supporters tend to like him - the Axis claimed the USSR was about to attack in 1941 at the time, although the huge Soviet defeats in 1941 tended to suggest unreadiness for any such operation.
@@Wustenfuchs109 I don’t think Victor Suvorov is right about an immanent Soviet attack on Nazi Germany in 1941. However there are indications that Stalin’s plan was for Nazi Germany on one side and France and Britain on the other side to weaken each other, so that Stalin could profit at the expense of all of them. Ik am now reading the book ‘Stalin’s War’ written by Sean McMeekin.
Tik on his channel on youtube discredited this one
@@robertskrzynski2768 No. Tik dismissed Suvorov. He did not debunk him. Suvorov wrote 2 books on Stalin's plans to strike Nazi Germany.: Icebreaker and The Chief Culprit. None of these TH-cam historians have read the books.
The "US knew about Pearl and let it happen" conspiracy is so funny to me because it's so baseless.
You don't need a false flag attack or whatever to get into a defensive war and nothing would have changed if the US had prepared for Pearl Harbor.
That's the twisted beauty of Pearl Harbor. Japan bungled on declaring war on the US, making the declaration came hours after the attack thus making them the enemy. A classic case of "Not interrupting your enemy while making a mistake"...
It’s always funny how people say FDR let Pearl Harbor happen because he wanted a war with Hitler…when it was Hitler who knee jerk reacted after Pearl Harbor and declared war on the US, not the other way around. And it fails to take into account what Japan had been doing in China since 1931. Then again I’m a strong believer that Japan’s role leading up and starting WW2 has been vastly ignored because it’s not the simple cardboard cutouts of white hats v black hats we’ve turned Europe and nazi Germany into
@@axelpatrickb.pingol3228 If you're talking about the 14 part message supposedly delivered late because the Japanese Embassy couldn't type fast enough, it was not a declaration of war, nor was there anything in it implying their was an imminent threat of the Japanese attacking the U.S. You can read the thing online if you want.
Even if USA knew, and/or Japan had notified the war in advance, it doesn't change anything. Japan sailed through the pacific to attack first. USA would have entered war anyway after Pearl Harbor.
Lets walk down the events in the hypothetical "US knew".
1, Japanese navy on its way to attack
2a (nefarious version) do nothing to avoid damages of attack,
3a attack happens damages Hawaii and the Philippines.
2b (sensible version) prepares to defend Pearl Harbor and the Philippines
3b attack happens small damages to the Philippines and Pearl Harbor, considerable losses to the Japanese navy.
4 a or b US falls into the war.
you guys should actually do a series where you disprove conspiracy theories.
Shirley you mean test there validity
Could you repeat that? I couldn’t make out your statement over the rotating droning noise of the jet engines.
Hey Indy, sparty & crew
Would love if you could briefly discuss Irelands role in ww2.
As a Irishman myself its rarely discussed here how german bombers accidentally dropped bombs on Dublin and how both English and german air crew who bailed out were inturned in ireland.
I dont know if it's TRUE but apparently the air crew had a fair bit of freedom to visit towns and cinemas so long as they returned to the camps at a certain time. With some english aircrew discreetly being given back to England even with Irelands neutrality.
Also with how the Eamon De Valera the irish taoiseach at the close of the war writing in the book of condolences at the german embassy for Hitler's death in 1945 is sort of a spread subject for ireland and I imagine adds to how irelands role in ww2 here is downplayed.
Anyway keep up the great content.
Your great Craic.
(Craic= pronounced "crack" for fun)
What made that act on De Valera's part so galling is that just a few days before he had stated that as the head of a neutral state he could not offer official condolences to the US for the death of President Roosevelt.
I could understand if it had been Churchill, but what did the US ever do to Ireland or to De Valera himself to deserve such a snub?
“History in a Vacuum” is continuing today with very recent events Nov 2020, Jan 2021 ughh.
Thank you again for a very insightful commentary based on facts 👊🏼
In high school I had a history teacher who said FDR knew about Pearl Harbor. I always thought it was dumb since FDR could have no way of knowing Hitler would be dumb enough to join in after Japan.
Your teacher was onto something, clearly elements of the American government knew full well War was imminent and only pride stops us hearing the full truth, these fellows are just being cautious.. I'd hope.
@@DaveSCameron 🤦♂️
@@DaveSCameron
Yeah, they knew war was probably unavoidable - THAT'S WHY THEY WERE SHIPPING THOSE BOMBERS TO THE PHILIPPINES!
But if you stretch "they knew something was looming" into "they knew the exact time and date" then you should probably become a yoga instructor, because that is one impressive stretch!
The eminent start of the US involvement in a global war was clearly seen in the years before December 1941. We had the Neutrality Patrols in the Atlantic from the beginning of the Germany U-Boat raids on the Atlantic convoys. In the Pacific, McArthur had some idea that the Philippines were in the way to the Japanese Economic Co-Prosperity Zone. McArthur convinced Roosevelt that he needed more defense troops in country, so the US shipped out 5 battalions of artillery and squadrons of pursuit airplanes not two weeks before December 7. These Americans were part of a callup of National Guard units in the previous year, and the implementation of draft boards. He saw the war in China as an action to increase the production of steel for the Japanese fleet. One of the resources that Japan needed to conquer an empire, was US refined petroleum products, the US reduced the export of those product in response to the war in China
@@steveschulte8696 Hmm, so neutrality predated 1941 hey, I'm quite sure that you "sphere of influence" Latin American countries along with Liberia, Philippines etc may disagree...
I would totally watch "History doesn't happen in a vacuum." Make it happen!
With FDR, I've always thought FDR knew ~something~ was going to happen with Japan, but couldn't know where, what, or the precise date. Saying he knew Pearl Harbor itself was going to happen is blatantly wrong but I think it should've been obvious to all involved at the time that Japan was about to make some kind of big move. Clearly, though, without knowing exactly what that was FDR couldn't have defended against it, or, as the conspiracy theory suggests, allowed it to happen
If FDR didn't have a hunch something would happen somewhere with the Japanese then he'd have to be the dumbest president up to that point. Like I doubt he knew it'd be pearl harbor. Probably assumed it'd be somewhere in Asia.
In hindsight it seems like both nations were just waiting to see who threw the first punch.
Two very big questions, aptly answers. I wish I could have the suave of Indy and the Class of Sparticus when speaking on such controversial and moving subjects. Its clear that both men are heavily invested in the answers they gave, but put it across in such a way that no one can say they were being, biased, demeaning, derogatory or dismissive.
The history in a vacuum series is a good idea and you should do it. There are thousands of things about WW2 that people dictate as some Machiavellian plot to justify the things that happen that should be given a definitive closer look to close the book on the issue. It would also mean more content from Timeghost, which I always welcome and enjoy. Hope all is well, love your vids.