I remember reading an excerpt from a German soldier late in the war and by late 44' the Germans observed American tanks and trucks and AFVs sitting their idling while doing nothing and they knew the war was over. By that time Germany had to ration their fuel and oil having lost Africa and the Caucuses. The Germans feared the allies and their ability to readily resupply above all.
I always find "what if" scenarios absurd for this and other reasons at this time. Like "what if" the nazis had an extra 10,000 trucks, tanks, aircraft, whatever. What good would it do? Their armies had already been ground down to nubs, their 'allies' (italy, hungary, romania) all gone, almost no fuel for what they *did* have and the last resort of making badly armed citizen militias of children and elderly for last ditch defense. No men, no fuel, no weapons and all three are necessary for war.
lol the German feared the Russian/Soviets and with good cause the German Nazi and regular army committed the most harsh brutality against the Russian/Soviet people killing at least 20 million civilian's and 10 million soldiers!
@@curtiscriscoe367 in Supernova in the East Dan Carlin tells of accounts of Japanese soldiers surrendering because the Marines were cooking up food that they could smell. The Japanese were sitting in their foxholes eating maggoty rice and couldn't take it anymore.
From a diary of a German soldier on the eastern front,” there is so much good living land here for us. Russia is very fertile.” Few weeks in “At this rate we will be at Moscow by Christmas” A few months later at Stalingrad,” 3 men fought in a grain elevator for three days, they knew they will die and fight tooth and nail, if every Russian soldier fights like this we will not be coming home.” Edit: Also you guys HAVE to watch Brest Fortress. very realistic and historically accurate film of the Russian perspective
That timing of the diary seems off by the time of the war in stalingrad most German troops already knew they were in a vicious struggle after the winter in 42
My neighbor Frank Correll once told me an apocryphal story. He was a WW2 veteran with the 70th Division. Infantryman. His story went like this after the war he ran into a former Japanese soldier while working for American Airlines in Mexico City during the Olympics. He asked him so who were the best jungle fighters during the war. The Japanese man told him the Australians. Puzzled and being a former infantryman exclaimed the " Australians? " Why not the Americans. He said "When the Americans fight no more jungle".
True, Guadalcanal had huge dark tropical forests but by the time the war and American shelling was over, not so much. These days the Solomon Islands is letting foreign companies fell what's left for timber
Semi-similar story: my grand uncle was in the bataan death march and found one of his torturers in a mall in Texas after he got home after the war. Iirc he was arrested after my grand uncle had his turn.
Having the American officers look like regular soldiers and not stand out is actually a great way to not get picked off by snipers literally looking to pick off the officers.
@@ayylmao2190 then what? Heavly depends which tank you compare? Then a tiger? Sure but he wasnt though to travel. Over all the shermans were defenitly more reliable then the average but not by much
I spoke to a Wehrmacht soldier some years ago who fought on 3 different fronts of the war, and he had this to say (from my memory and not a direct quote) "At first I fought the Russians. The thing about the Russians is you could shoot them and they would keep coming. Riddle with bullets they'd get back up and keep running at you. As an enemy you had to respect that, or they'd get you" "Then I fought against the British. The British fought a lot like we did, and they were very good at it. As an enemy you had to respect that, or they'd get you" "Then at the end of the war I was fighting against the Americans. Now the thing about that is I never actually saw an American through all the smoke and explosions. But we kept falling back, and you have to respect that."
That's also what my grandpa told me. He was a teenage soldier during ww2 on the german side and described how they barely got any americans within range. They just mortared and bombed the shit out of them. They had the numbers, the equipment and the supplies... and therefore all the time they needed while the red army advanced more and more towards Berlin. That's also a reason why the americans had few losses in comparison. They just needed to be patient. And when somebody was injured the chances of survival were very high because of immediate evacuation and treatment. On the german side, on the other hand, many wounded just didn't make it. My grandfather told me about a particular "encounter" when they hid between ruins while bombs and mortar shells rained down on them. Eventually the american pushed forwards with infantry to see if there are any remaining germans. As soon as the first bullet flown they retreated immediately and the bombardement continued a short time after.
I always remember a guy worked with who fought first Iraq war he said the British fired the Iraq army ducked, Iraq fired the British would duck, the Americans fire and everybody ducks lol
@@jamespetrie8488 I'm not saying it wasn't a good way. Under those conditions the americans were absolutely able to go with this kind of stategy. Germany was so exhausted and low on almost everything that they couldn't really counter the barrage of bombardement. The german soldiers just tried to take cover as good as possible and repel the americans if they were within range. Problem was: They completely shattered the german morale, which was extremely low at this point anyway, with their strategy. Not only showing that they basically have infinite supplies but also that they are in absolute control of the battlefield. There were only a few battles which were fought on equal terms against american soldiers. Mostly when artillery and aircraft failed to operate effectively. The battle of Hurtgen Forest is an example for this. Aircraft and artillery wasn't able to function properly because of the dense forest area, which made infantry the main factor in this battle. It was just soldiers clashing head to head. Germany had very much of it's focus on infantry drill and training, which made the german infantry better than the american. And also, of course, because they had quite the battle experience, which is the most valuable asset you can have as a soldier. Then again the experienced soldiers were so thinned out at this point that they had to refill the ranks with boys and old men that barely had any training at all. Just enough to use a weapon. And still; In the end war is decided by production and logistics. No matter how good your soldiers are, if they don't have the supplies to continue the fight they are doomed to lose.
I remember reading what a German soldier said , after the second world war . If you came under a mass attack it was either the Russians or Chinese . If you got very accurate rifle fire it was the British . But if you got attacked, and it want very quiet and then heavy artillery fire it was the Americans .
It's actually an old joke, told from an Italian perspective, mostly about how to differentiate the different armies and it was their response to their firing upon them to how you'd learn: British with accurate rifle fire, Germans with machine gun fire, and Americans was just silence as they were calling for all levels of ordinance. The key level to know that what you've said is apocryphal, is that the Germans never fought the Chinese. They trained the Chinese to fight like them. If anything, that's a Japanese perspective.
tu as simplement lu !!! depuis 1945 nous avons des preuvent que les soldats américains ne sont pas des foudres de guerres ? exemple : Corée , Vietnam ,Cuba , Somalie , Syrie , Koweït , Irak , Afghanistan malgrés le matériel performant les américains on mis le foutoir dans le monde et depuis 80 ans ils perdent toutes les guerres !!! les pires désastres de l'armée américaines sont : au Vietnam , Somalie , en Irak et Afghanistan
huge miss not having the Canadians on the list. they had some divisions that would take no prisoners. plenty of stories of Germans not wanting to fight them at all
The irony of the US not having uniforms is funny. The problem was that the US learned in the Indian Wars that if Officers stand out, they die first. Also the US issued 2 uniforms, the brown wool uniform, and the green cotton HBT utilities uniform, which changed color half way through the war.
I always thought us uniforms were much better than the German one everyone seems to simp for. They're simple and efficient, just like most of the stuff america made during the war
It is very important to use your brains at the end when you have lost the war. The Soviets were are the wrong side of non war history, but won the war, so not as much love for them.
Yes, but they didn't necessarily need to lie in order to do that. The Americans and the British (as well as other allied nations) were generally quite well organized, well coordinated, well equipped, well led, and highly effective.
I was privileged to know a former British 8th Army veteran who served as a Captain in Churchill's old Cavalry Regt, 4th Hussars. Tom fought throughout the full duration of the desert campaign, and the Italian campaign. He lost two tanks, one to a mine, the second time, an 88mm took his tank out, he was lucky to survive. Tom had a great deal of respect for the German soldiers, whom he regarded as extremely formidable, professional and tough opponents. He held Rommel in very high regard indeed. He once told me, "The only officer who was held in even higher regard than Montgomery by the men of the 8th Army was ROMMEL." He wasn't joking either. When Churchill visited the 8th Army, he visited his old Cavalry unit. Tom was a keen photographer, so he asked the CO if he could photograph Churchill's visit to the Regt's lines. Tom had a large album of photo's- which have never been published, of Churchill visiting his old unit. Tom was able to get within 6 feet of Winston to photograph him, so the pictures were superb. It was a privilege to view the photo's. Tom was away from Britain for a full five years, without once returning on leave- tough times.
My grandad was born in 1911. He served with the Northamptonshire artillery regiment. He did 4 tours in total First in North Africa Then in italy Then 2 tours in burma. On his 4th tour he was offered honourable discharge, he’d already lost the tip of a finger, And Was suffering from a hunched back from humping shells But the nail in the coffin was his hearing was all but shot and could no longer hear orders shouted to him unless they were right next to him. He refused, instead he joined the mess and finished his tour as a cook. Which according to him was probably worse for his regiment than being shelled by the enemy.
That's because Monty was a poor decision maker and over cautious. He was the most over rated Allied General in World War 2. Rommel had bowel movements more significant than "Monty".
Of the eight dead German soldiers in WW2, seven died on the Eastern Front. Of all military personnel in WW2, the Americans lost one in every 25, the British one in every 24 and the Russians one in every 4. Source: Max Hastings - "All Hell Let Loose". Whatever the Germans thought about the Allies then, everyone knew that the most dangerous was the eastern front.
@@deeacosta2734 Lend Lease didn't really have a tangible effect until 1943, by which time the Germans were on the back foot. It certainly helped but the vast majority of soviet equipment was soviet built
@@deeacosta2734 Lend Lease? Yeah right. The great American story of America believing it's own lies about being the great saviours. What won the war was the huge sacrifice of 20 odd million Russian dead, despite Russia pleading it's Allies to start a second front to take the pressure off. By the time the Normandy Landings occurred, the Russians had pushed the Nazis back out of the Caucasus, Crimea, Russia proper, most of Ukraine and Belarus. The Germans had lost millions in dead, most of their planes and tanks. The war was effectively already over and it was basically mopping up only. 80% of German troops died in the Russian front. So, lets look at Lend Lease in more detail, eh? USSR got 1/3 of the goods through Lend Lease that Britain did, despite having almost four times the population at the start of the war. So per head of population, that works out of 1/12th the assistance, despite Britain basically being secure in it's sea borders and "Russia" having over a 1000 mile long front engaged in constant warfare. Of that amount of lend lease goods, over half of it was shipped through Russian Shipping through Japanese controlled seas (there was a neutrality agreement between USSR and Japan at the time) under strict inspection routines that there were no arms, munitions or the like onboard. Of the goods that the Americans managed to land in Russian territory, the level of respect for them varied greatly. American trucks and trains were sought after as there was insufficient logistical equipment for the level of industrial production that the Russians were gearing up for. Food was obviously important with so much of Russian lands under German occupation, the "Scorched Earth" defence policy, and the majority of Russian men in the army. Or exterminated on the spot by the Germans, put into death camps or forced labour camps. As for the American tanks, the M3 Medium (Lee) was referred to as "a coffin for seven brothers" and was quickly relegated to training duties. About 2000 early M4 (Shermans) made it to the Russians, and were considered inferior to their domestic tanks, being prone to catching fire easily, due to gasolene fuel, and also sinking into the mud and getting bogged due to high weight with narrow tracks. Both Russia and Germany made wide track vehicles for the Eastern Front to reduce ground pressure to prevent this, because a bogged tank is a sitting target. It was also slower, yet less well armoured than the T-34, and armament was only on par with the early T-34's. The 2000 later delivered M4 Sherman 76mm addressed some of these issues, but by then the Russians were using far superior versions of their own T-34's, specifically the T-34-85, and the 76mm gun was still massively undergunned compared to the standard German tanks of the time About half the total "armoured vehicles" that made it to Russia were M3 "White" half tracks and M3 scout cars, including anti aircraft versions. So many versions of "M3" (let alone the M3 "Stuart" the Russians also recieved) caused great confusion, both for the Russians and also the British using them in Africa, which is how they all got their separate names. Lend Lease had far less impact than Americans think. Any aid was still useful and welcomed, but it certainly didn't have the impact you seem to believe.
@@jakemurray2635 Only 34,000 odd T-34 tanks made by the Russians, and the 29,000 more T-34-85. Plus the 8,000 odd heavy tanks, and the over 20,000 Self Propelled Guns/Tank Destroyers of the SU series. By comparison, Americans sent about 7,000 tanks to Russia, with about 4000 of those being Shermans, the rest being mostly M3 Stuart and the M3 Lee (mostly not used for combat). Exact records of how many were landed versus lost in shipping are unclear. Also of note, the British and Canadians sent about 4,000 Valentines, 1,000 Matildas, and 300 Churchill heavy tanks. Not THAT far behind what the Americans sent there.
How dare the Americans "cheat" by using their huge industrial capacity? That's like a German commander complaining that a Chuchill tank's ability to climb hills in Tunisia was 'unsporting". 🤣
I think the Germans feared the Soviets the most not so much because of martial prowess, but because of their anger and desire for vengeance above any other nation.
I don't think the Germans GAF about what the Soviets thought of them, the Germans hated them back just as much. The Germans feared the Soviets because of their never ending cannon fodder and the idea of communism taking over Germany if they lost.
yeah the soviets were just relentless. I think that's where russians shine best in attrition. They arent really the most skilled but their numbers and drive make up for it.
Germans mostly feared Soviet soldiers because of their will to fight. One story I have read was about how German tank was destroyed (it was a lucky shot that hit ammo) by Soviet T-34... That was burning for 2-3 minutes already. When Panzer III was close enough, the tank slightly moved turret and shoot. According to the German unit commander, that made heavy impact on his soldiers morale.
It's because they were communist slaves forced into suicidal mass charges on a daily basis, imagine fighting armed zombies that ran into your bullets out of fear of their own bullets.
My great-grandfather was part of the 4th Indian Division of the British Indian Army in North Africa. He held Germans in high regard but to him, best commonwealth soldiers were New Zealanders. Born 1906 died 2006.
Glad to hear your great grandfather had a long life. The Germans greatest fear was G S Patton once they got to know him and his habits because Patton keep moving forward as long as he had gas in his tanks and didn't give them much time to regroup for a counter attack.
My uncle fought with the 4th Indian Division in North Africa, and had immense respect for them. He fought again with them at Monte Cassino, and volunteered to move up to the front to bring back Indian wounded, during the night after a failed attack. They brought them back whilst under German fire.
Years ago (and I can't remember the source now) I read an account of a German soldier who had fought everywhere from the beginning of the war to the end. He was asked how each of the different nations fought. He said that the British were always very professional and you could always count on them to be a tough adversary, either in defense or on the attack. The French were brave and fought well but were poorly lead. The Russians were totally unpredictable. One day they would surrender 100,000 at a time and the next they would fight fanatically to the death. The Americans? Well, he couldn't say how the Americans fought because in every encounter he had with them, at first contact, he was bombed, strafed and shelled to the point where he couldn't tell what the actual soldiers were doing. That's the American way of war...... I'll gladly spend $50,000 tax dollars to save a doughboy's life any day.....
@@jimdavis8391 Perhaps you should read more closely and understand that I was quoting a German soldier's perception of of his interactions in WWII. FYI, Kasserine wasn't as bad as it could have been because of overwhelming US artillery, Salerno was saved because of the navy hammering everything in sight and air superiority and the northern shoulder of Wacht am Rhine was held up for an entire day by 3 artillery FOs and a corps worth of US arty supporting their fire missions. I think the German was correct.
@@jimdavis8391 bro look at Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan . The American tactic is to bomb the enemy either into submission or weaken them enough to make infantry casualties a minimum. We tend not to send our guys into a wall of bullets and try to overwhelm the enemy with a wall of bodies. They even shelled Normandy for days on end prior to the invasion
@@jimdavis8391 evidently YOU are unaware of El Guettar, Mortain, Omaha Beach, Arracourt, St Vith, Bastogne, Aachen and Remagen. We beat the Germans in ALL OF THOSE! Who cares what the Germans thought!?
The Germans suffered a general beat-down from US artillery and airpower. The survivors and prisoners were contemptuous of our reliance on that versus infantry engagement. They viewed it as the "rich man's way of fighting". Well, if you've got it, flaunt it.
They should of feared the US infantry more, I read a biography that describes airborne soldiers that mounted decapitated German soldiers heads on the front of their jeeps.
I read a lots of comments, describing how the Americans just bombed the Germans away, instead of actually combating them. I only got the story of my grandpa and that one was quite different. He and his squad were ordered to ambush an American position up the hill. And the Americans had a machine gun. End of story. 3 bullets went through my grandpa (I saw the scars) and he crawled through bushes back to his line, in order to be sent to a hospital. And he managed. Which is why I got to be born in the end ^^
I can't remember the source, but I remember reading an account from a German POW taken after D-Day and shortly after the Falaise Pocket disaster (for the Germans). As he was being transported back to a POW camp, he remarked not on the tanks, or tactics, or professionalism, or bravery of his American captors, but on the literal mountains of supplies he witnessed stockpiled along the way and the thousands upon thousands of transport trucks carrying food, fuel and ammunition to the front. He said as soon as he saw how well supplied the allies were, specifically the Americans, he knew the war was over.
I read a similar report of a German POW astounded at the amount of uS transport. Their infantry didn't march everywhere, they had trucks. US infantry divisions had more vehicles than German mechanised divisions.
A well fed and rested army is essential. You’re seeing it now with Russia in Ukraine. It’s likely how we won the US civil war too. Standard daily calorie intake for Union soldier was around 3000…confederate was around 900..
@@nicknoss5341 and as the saying went "there's not a cannon factory in the whole south". You could have twice or three times the numbers but if their morale is shit, they're on one meal a day and their equipment is constantly failing them, you will still lose to a well supplied and equipped militia.
Thats the duality of ameirica in 1800 and 1900s a veru industrial society but not the most trained a pretty new army but with all the most gear and most advanced
A Quote from my late Grandfather who fought from North Africa to Germany. “When the Luftwaffe bombed the allies ducked, When the RAF bombed the Germans ducked but when the Yanks bomb everybody ducks”
I remember hearing the Germans knew when they were fighting Americans because they made every shot count, a German fell with each American shot. Because Americans already had experience with rifles before the war.
@@mountainguyed67 Sorry but thats rubbish, the US Army used more small arms ammunition than the Commonwealth and French put together..source John Keegan in his book ‘The sharp end’. They sprayed and prayed..like all Armies that have the luxury of endless supplies.
its way off americans were not trained very well in ww2 they were nit remotly prepared f9r any war the bigest suprise of ww2 is america managing ti mobalise as fast as it did every country in ww2 except america had a stand8ng army before the war and was allready mobalises ameeica almost ducked uo dday the canadian and british landings went fine america fucked uo their land8ng it became the bigest boood bath out of dday because ofmit
A friend of my family’s was a gunner in I believe a b17. He always had a difficult time around Christmas thinking of the people he had killed. He was shot down over the Reich and a German soldier made a deal with him. He said I’ll get you through the German line if you can get me through the allies. They were both true to their word. Ernie’s life was saved by the German soldier and he got the German soldier as far as he could before the mp took him into custody. Also unrelated when Ernie was a child he caddied for Babe Ruth and the Iron horse .he had other really cool things I can’t remember.
@@brianjones7660 thanks yeah that’s what my mom said. Ernie was married to a lady named Helen . I only know one person alive who knew more about his incredible life. I wonder if the German soldier has family that could expand on the story. Ernie and Helen went to a prayer meeting and my mom met them there
When my grandfather was pushing up through Italy with the RAF in 1944, a group of German POWs joked with their British captors "This isn't fair. You have the Americans and we have the Italians".
@@leojanuszewski1019It doesn't even sound like a race thing, ironic for Germans at that time. The Italians really were not as powerful an ally to the Axis, as the US was to the allies.
A slight mistake in the caption of one of the photographs shown in this video at 6:14 This is actually a French soldier during France's short-lived invasion of Germany in 1939, called the *Saar Offensive* Yes, France attacked Germany before Germany conquered France.
@@neinnein9306 and the French general at the section where the Germans made the Arden breakthrough rejected artillery/tank/plane support telling his superiors that they will steal the glory from his infantry and that his men wouldn't fight as hard since they would think they could leave the job to the tanks/air force, he also went on a 3 day trip at midnight to try and find another general only to then spend a few days walking around the town and shopping all this did occur without him telling where he was going, then later on in Vichy he claimed he supported the free French but did order his men to round up free French officers and shoot them while also sending groups of Algerian Jews to the camp's.
The best description of the Americans during the war was ‘they didn’t solve problems, they overwhelmed them’. The best example was when they entered North Africa, they brought railways plus engines, and something like 6 ton of bras to trade with locals. No other military has or ever had such industrial might.
And they were also heavily defeated by Rommel and his Africa corp, an absolute push over at first. The American troops weren't up to scratch at all. They learnt their lessons and took their knocks well though.
@@jasonbutler7054 The America were defeated at Kasserine Pass. But the American soldier was a quick learner and kicked the Krauts ass all the way back to Germany you twit. The Germans lost the war and America did it to them.
My Father ( RIP 1997) 🙏🏻was in the British Eighth Army from 1939 to 1946. Duration of WW2 plus 6 months. He didn't speak to often about his time in North Africa and Italy. Except to say the German army were lead by excellent officers and the enlisted men were very well trained. The German tanks Panzer and Tigers were hard to knock out. Unless one got behind or hit one in the side. Even though he was at war vs the Axis forces my Father respected the German Africa Corps. They had difficulty with supply lines and ultimately that proved costly. This documentary seems very accurate in it's depiction of how the Germans felt about the Allied forces fighting against them. 💪🏼🙏🏻✨
@@theanderblast thank you i will peruse the information you have given me. On George Dring on his battle field accomplishments in a Sherman Tank. 💪🏼🙏🏻✨
Yeah, it's as my father always says: "Respect the person, not the position or respect the position, not the person, but if they're forcing other people to do respectable things, don't respect them."
My grandfather was also in the 8th and fought in NA. After the war he was sent to guard Italian POWs in a camp in Scotland. It was here where he learned that his former enemy was in fact no different from him and everyone just wanted to go home and get on with their lives. Was wondering if that was the deal for all 8th army soldiers before demobilization, guarding POWs in Scotland and returning home in 1946.
My grandfather on my mother's side was a German lieutenant (oberleutnant) and fought the Canadians in Normandy. He said that they were brave, cunning and above all else, ruthless.He told me that towards the end of the Normandy campaign the Canadians were treating all German prisoners if they were SS. My grandfather was finally captured in Belgium after his unit ran out of ammunition. My grandfather put it to a vote as to what to do next and the vast majority voted to surrender.
I don’t know why people think of the Canadians as a very gentle nation. I guess they don’t watch hockey. I could not imagine fighting an army full of Terry O’Reiley’s or Broad St. Bullies. As an American, I’m glad they’re on our side, except during the Winter Olympics.
I remember hearing a story of A former German soldier he said one day he was driving an officer but suddenly the car broke down. They then went to a near by prison camp holding American POWs to look for a mechanic. When they asked the prisoners if they knew how to fix a car over half the camp stepped forward. That’s when the driver then knew that the war was lost. He said that if a they were fighting a country where cars were this common they were going to get out industrialized and out performed in terms of machines and capacity
I remember hearing a story where a guys relative was a German soldier during ww2 and his officers told him that when fighting the Americans you must keep your head on a swivel and must think of the least probable way they'll attack them, because that will be the way they attack them . I also heard another one that an Italian said that the American army didn't fight like any other European country, other army's were slow and disciplined whilst the Americans were unpredictable but prone to ingenuity from General to Grunt. There was a quote saying "War is chaos and the American army practices on daily basis."
Please let's not forget that the French outnumbered 20 to one fought ferociously and selflessly to hold back the Germans at Dunkirk to allow the brits and French to get on the boats to be evacuated.
You must be British. 😉 Americans wouldn't know that fact. Well.. they also don't know where to place Africa on a map, but that's a story for another day.
@@colonelturmeric558 Yes, my British great uncle John was captured holding the line at Dunkirk along with thousands of other British soldiers. He spent the rest of the war as a POW.
"Officers do not stand out in apperance unlike in any other European army" America was ahead of its time in this, officers should wear combat uniform that will not mark them for enemy
In the US Revolution the British and Hessen groups complained that the US snipers were targeting the officers. Clearly the US Army understood the lessons they were teaching way back then.
Generals Grant, Sherman and Sheridan took that to an extreme by dressing like common wagon drovers working under contract for the Union Army. That allowed them to sit at the front lines discussing the terrain and tactics while passing a jug around.
Fun fact: Britain has historically had the highest number of aristocrats dead in war because they stand up straight to make their soldiers feel brave, like a peacock. The soldiers thought it was stupid, but inspiring nonetheless I guess that explains the whole stiff upper lip Britishness stuff
USA might have been less disciplined and such but it also led to them being very creative and thinking on their feet instead of having to follow set procedures that might not be as effective. Also loved this thing where the different leaders claimed that America goes against all procedures and makes them very hard to predict. But then it had the Americans logic of “if we have no idea what we’re doing, how will the enemy”. Lastly I remember a thing where a German knew the war was lost after they killed an American and found him to be a big guy and lots of food on him, realizing the amount of food and supplies a standard American had while they were starving
A long standing tactic of Americans is what's known as maneuver warfare, and the best generals are those who can master it. If the enemy doesn't know where you're going, they can't counter you effectively. If they do manage to guess your objective, you can change it without sacrificing too much momentum. Look at Sherman's Georgia and Carolinas campaigns. The Confederates weren't able to stop him because they didn't know where he was going until it was too late to stop him.
A criticism I heard about the Americans was that they couldn't think on their feet and weren't creative. They relied too much on their technology and fire power and without it they were very meek and mild. And another thing was they took credit for everything and run down the soldiers of other nations . There were incidents in countries hosting GIs were Americans showed a complete lack of respect for the locals. Incidents like the Battle of Brisbane and the Battle of Bamber Bridge etc.
I remember a story in which during the Battle of the Bulge, if memory serves me right, the Americans captured a German soldier. The Americans asked the German on what he thinks of Germany's various enemies. The German said that the French could be easily beat off with artillery. The Soviets the same. The British when they announced they would attack they would also announce where they would attack. So the Germans always knew where they would attack and easily beat them off. When one of the Americans asked the German soldier what he thought of the Americans the German soldier replied: "oh you Americans are different." "You say you will attack here, but you attack somewhere else." "when you announce the time you will attack, you attack at a different time." "You Americans are like us, you don't know what's going on!"
Are sure that this German wasn't catering to the Americans' ego to ensure good treatment.? What is he going to say to American captors? That American troops were shit?
@@PeterWestinghouse Let's look at this another way. The German soldier, the enemy, is telling his captors that they are similar to his opponents. How would you feel if you were told by your opponent that you are the same as them? Doesn't sound good either now does it? And it sounds like to me you need to lighten up.
@@Taffer-bx7uc Taffer 1000: _"You're in the wrong war"_ a/ It could sound like a general statement about diverse people at war (their typical behavior in specific situations - their weaknesses). b/ If the French could withstand the most immense hail of steel the world had ever seen so far in ww1, why couldn't they endure any at all 20 yrs later?!... weird to snipe at them about that specific situation. c/ Maybe the most important point: The quick French defeat in 1940 was above all strategical (surprise attack through the Ardennes) + the new blitzkrieg strategy that noone could efficiently counter back then - and it was particularly linked with panzer divisions and had not much to do with artilery... weird comment by this guy.
My old Friend I worked with in Canada served in the German army in WW2 I asked how the war ended for him and he told he had been in the battle of the bulge. He was in a tank and they ran out of fuel with none to get so they had to surrender. I worked with many veterans of the war that served in in different militaries which happens when you live in Canada a immigrant country. My Father went ashore at Juno beach with Canadian Army Fort Garry Horse Armored reconnaissance. He liberate France ,Belgium, Holland into Germany. He never had any bad things to say about the German Army or the German people. All the people who were Veterans of different countries on both sides that I worked with had no grudges visible and no arguments between them.Tthey were all glad the War was over.
Yep, despite it whe the Brits claim, it was Sydney “Rad” Radley-Walters of A Sqn, Sherbrooke Fusiliers, 2nd Armoured Brigade, that ended the “Black Baron” Michael Whittmann’s killing spree in his Tiger. Canadian’s had never been shy to fight.
I once worked with a German that was a POW at a camp south of Chicago and returned to the village where it was located after the war. He saw a good amount of action yet didn't care to discuss his experience fighting different armies but said the American GI was blessed with having the best field rations and real handy small Coleman stove to heat up food, water and sleeping areas.
@@edscmidt5193 Believe it was the Homewood area. There werr two parks there: Sweetwoods North & Sweetwoods South. One had a Girl Scout camp nearby that was a former German POW camp that wasn't torn down after the war. The camp was using their former wood barracks as housing, mess halls and educational classrooms. I think those buildings were painted a light green. That region from south of Chicago and across NW Indiana into SE Michigan was settled by German and Dutch farmers that formed small communities so those POW's were put to work on their farms and orchards. My coworker said they expected a harsh existence behind barb wire so were surprised to have comfortable accommodations, plenty to eat and being taken out to work for people that spoke German and provided buckets of homemade beer during lunch with their guards approval (one benefit for good behavior). Him and several others returned around 1950 to settle down in Sauk Village while others went to South Holland. I last talked with him in 1977 before moving to Texas.
@@LeoMidori The GI daily rations provided 6,000 calories. The Germans provided 5,000. I don't remember how many calories the other countries soldiers consumed each day. The GI's favorite ration meal was breakfast since it came with a packet or two of instant coffee. Lunch and dinner came with some sort of instant fruit drink nobody liked. Probably was due to being acidic so reacted with their aluminum cups.
On the Eastern Front, it was a automatic death sentence for any Wehrmacht soldier who was captured in an SS uniform. The Red Army soldiers just summarily executed them. On the odd occasion a prisoner was needed for interrogation, an SS soldiers could expect to be executed later, or at least “shot while trying to escape”.
Same for regular Wermacht soldiers, if they has bad luck, and wss captured by advancing Soviet tanks or mechanised corps or divisions. For them it was easier to shot POW's, than bother to form column of POW's and send guards with them.
@@PyromaN93 : But what about the parade of Wehrmacht pow’s through Moscow in 1944. Grandma used to tell stories about watching SS officers being publicly hanged and foaling themselves. She used to feel a little guilty about enjoying the spectacle, but it would be only momentarily until she remembered family lost during the war. Dad and uncles used to tell stories about throwing stones at German pows being transported to Siberia, or engaged in post-war reconstruction.
@@PyromaN93 sometimes but many hundreds of thousands of Wehrmacht soldiers returned to Germany in the 1950s. They were kept for 6-10 years in labour camps. Clearly they didn't shoot all of them!
“The American soldier cannot attack without artillery and air support” - a German soldier about to get turned into pink mist by artillery and air support
I saw a television documentary some years back on the Battle of Monte Casino. The German soldiers being interviewed were all very matter of fact and stereotypically stern. But one of them actually teared up and got emotional when he started talking about the Poles - and how bravely they fought in that battle.
Again, that was a battle where the Americans simply bombed the Germans into the Stone Age. I studied the Monte Casino campaign in detail because I once spent a year living in a Benedictine abbey of the American Casinese Congregation. The abbey was completely rebuilt after the war.
@@marcmeinzer8859 It was heavily bombed - and shelled - no doubt, but it was precisely the resulting rubble that gave the Germans a tremendous amount of cover to hold out. Monte Cassino was not "simply" a bombing campaign. Between January 17, 1944 and May 18, 1944 Monte Cassino and the Gustav defenses were attacked on four occasions by Allied troops. On May 16th, soldiers from the Polish II Corps launched one of the final assaults on the German defensive position as part of a twenty-division assault along a twenty-mile front. On May 18th a Polish flag, followed by a British flag, were raised over the ruins of the abbey. I too have been to the rebuilt abbey.
@@ScottA2345 I’ve only seen the abbey dimly in the distance while in Gaeta with the merchant marine. The abbey I tried living in was St. Andrew’s Abbey in Cleveland, Ohio, which is also Benedictine. There are only a token number of monks at the rebuilt Monte Casino the location where Saint Benedict founded the order in the sixth century with just a handful of monks such as Saint Damian, St. Cosmas and Saint Dismas.
Nothing but Respect for the World War II Generations of men and women. A lot of them survived through 2 World Wars, the spread of deadly viruses, the Great Depression, and everything that comes with each situation... yet you rarely heard a complaint from any of them about it. The greatest people we have ever known. There will never be a population on Earth that will ever come close, I'm sure of this
I tend to agree with you. My parents were married in Australia during the depression, I was born in 1940 at the beginning of the war. My father was a very young teenager in England during the 1st war. I remember him telling me about going down to the railway station in Birmingham with his mother late at night to meet the train bringing injured soldiers back to their home areas. They wanted to see if my father's older brother was among the injured. My father said he would never forget the sound of men crying, screaming and moaning in pain when the train pulled into the station. He said the trains came late at night so the population were not likely to see the dreadful injuries of some of the men.
@Art Guy: yah most historians forget about the “ minor” allied commonwealth countries. Yet, without their contribution, the war would have taken longer. Canadian pilots are never mentioned as, Canada’s airforce was under the RAF. No mention of the hundreds of Pilots that were trained in Canada, or the thousands of aircraft built in Canada. Also, the thousands of merchant Marines that made sure the convoys got to Britain safely. Over 10% of Canada’s 11 million population of the time, served in WW2, over 65% were volunteers. Stay safe, stay sane, stay Strong Ukraine 🇺🇦
@@sirdavidoftor3413 that's nonsense that canadian pilots are forgotten. Because they dont feature so much in youtube videos? My hometown is a small town in yorkshire (england) that has an amazing cemetery and a war memorial. both are full mainly of canadian bomber crews names and the gravestones are kept in pristine condition and get ceremonies every year.
@@Ukraineaissance2014 : historians forget to mention them, not the British people! Though I will say not all. Dr. Mark Felton and a few other British TH-camrs do go into all combatants. A North American person doing research in 20 or so years, on this topic would not know how you honour Commonwealth graves. TH-cam is used today as a quick research tool. I have watched many American and British made docs on WW2 and many clump the commonwealth countries in with “ British forces”. Very few docs fail to recognize the contribution of the commonwealth countries. Someone learning about WW2 would just take it as fact that it was just British and American forces. Do you know who provided navel support for operation Torch in North Africa? Canadian, Australian, and Dutch navies ! If you watch documentaries on operation Torch, very few mentions that fact. Most people assume that it was British and American forces , since the documentaries never mentions who. I deeply respect the British people for honouring our war dead. Just as I honour all vets on Remembrance Day and Memorial Day ( USA). Stay safe, stay sane, stay Strong Ukraine 🇺🇦
As a Scotsman, seeing the United Kingdom being referred to as “England” is quite frustrating. The United Kingdom is not only England and it is not only Anglo Saxon. it includes Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland which are Celtic nations.
@@alexmcadam1126 you are definitely recognised by the English. Except when you beat us at football! Every Scot I have met in England has been great company and we try to be as courteous as possible (aside from the odd jibe). Also, after having heard so many stories about English people in Scotland I was amazed at how welcoming and friendly everyone was when I spent time in and around Glasgow.
It is generally only Americans who refer to England rather than the UK. Put this down to general ignorance. I served with many other members of the UK for nearly 30 years and am proud of all of them Be it Scottish, Welsh or Irish from both NI and Eire. However I am very much afraid that history shows that the majority of Scots and Welsh have only a small Celtic heritage after the Anglo Saxons, Vikings and Irish decended upon their countries after the Romans left. The Scotti are an Irish tribe who's kingdom of Dal Riada absorbed the Pictish Kingdom and the majority of the lowlands were settled by Anglo Saxons. Wales has a similar history up until the industrial revolution when hundreds and thousands of English people moved there to work in the mines and steelworks thereby reducing the percentage of Celtic even further. Even parts of England were affected by Viking and Irish invasions and settlement. The vast majority in the North East are of Viking extraction and in the North West and West Wales the Irish and Viking population was huge. This does not decry Celtic influence or culture which is endemic to the whole of the British Ilse and it is this admixture of Celtic, Saxon, Irish ,Viking and a few other ethnic groups that make up the British population that makes us great. One without the other would not have allowed us to become a great nation. Thank you for reading and please remember we are so mixed together that we are all British.
The Sherman was always intended to support infantry. Not seek out and go head to head with German armour. The Sherman's 75mm gun was well suited against enemy infantry and light vehicles, which was its typical encounters. And, isn't it better to build massive amounts of equipment to support the infantryman, than digging massive numbers of graves?
And funnily enough, when the 76 was used crews actually said they preferred having a 75 because it was better to fire HE with and they faced infantry more than tanks
From what I’ve heard, this is fairly accurate of the opinions at the time. They didn’t really respect the Russians (Soviets), just feared them for their brutality. They thought the Brits were competent, but overly cautious. The French kind of “meh” in general. Americans just had endless firepower and men to use, but were respectable as individuals, even if a bit sloppy as units. Watched a few documentaries on this topic and that seems to be roughly the German perspective… very roughly.
From what I’ve read and has been told to me, the Brits were cautious to the point of timidity. Inflict a few casualties on them and they stop advancing. One of my mentors, a German officer who’d fought all the above allied forces (he was in intelligence), said Russians were brutal pigs, Ukrainians - if you shot their commissars and officers- were good fighters who’d surrender rather than die for Stalin (who’d inflicted the Holomor/Ukrainian Holocaust on them). The French were “okay” fighters. Italians were a joke, unless they ambushed you. Americans had overwhelming artillery and controlled the air. That said, the M4 Sherman was a death trap for those who were in it. Brave, but doomed. Overall, the Germans were cautious when taking on Yanks. They could surrender after a small firefight, run away, or fight to the death. One could never predict how an American unit would respond, unless they were paratroopers. Then, they knew they were up against elite troops. I was born into a military intelligence family, and enjoyed mentors of German, Polish, and of course American birth.
@Nicolas I specifically said I’d seen documentaries on the topic, not that I’d heard German accounts of their opinions in person. Most people who even could have served in that war are dead, or approaching 100. I am a veteran though, I have talked to WW2 vets at my VFW. It’s mostly old men just trying to make friends and have companions that at least understand the concept of war (even if they were very different wars). You glean a certain amount through subtle clues in what the older vets say, even if they don’t say it directly. I have never personally spoken to a German veteran from WW2, probably never will, and I never said I did.
@@nwj03a Yea I don't care much who you are. 100 000 french soldiers died before the defeat, they fought like any other soldier would have despite everything. And here you are, noble internet random, with your "from what I have heard the french were meh soldiers".
@Nicolas That implies Americans care about the French. I’m being polite, nobody respects, fears, or cares about you… sorry, not sorry. You’d be like 10th on global care level, tops.
I believe that that the Russians were the most feared. The atrocities committed by the Germans in Russia left no doubt in anyone’s mind that payback was on its way. When you have two armies facing each other and no Quarter is given - that get your attention.
The russian soldiers didn't need a motivation like "payback" to commit their crimes. They were already as brutal to the polish people as they were to the german soldiers.
My neighbor here in the Philippines was the son of a Waffen SS Officer. His father wrote a book and he read me a translation when I was 16. Years later I came back and read the entire thing. His father was born in a Pro-Nazi Dutch family and when Germany invaded the Netherlands he joined the SS when he was given the opportunity. He started out as Infantry in an Infantry Battalion (forgot the name) and fought during Barbarossa. One time when his position was to be replaced by some Italians for them to rest, 10 minutes later those same Italians fled thinking there was a large Soviet force about to attack them. Turns out it was just some scouting party and from then on he hated the Italians saying "They paraded like they were Julius Caesar" in mockery. My neighbor told me he never vistied Italy with his father because of that. After that he got wounded, and then chose to train as a Tank Crewman during recovery. He even got awarded a medal by Steiner himself. If I remember correctly, he was a Radio Operator in the SS Division Wiking. Interestingly, his Panther Tank, 611, was one of the last Panthers in service before it got destroyed and he ended up operating a captured T34. One time when they were on patrol they encountered an IS-2 "driving across the snowfields below' (might be paraphrasing here). They were scared of the IS-2, but had little respect for the T34s and their crew since everytime they engaged them, they would always turn to their sides and expose their weak side armor. He never fought in Berlin. He jumped down a river and let himself be captured by Americans rather than face the Soviets. His son is still alive and is around 60 years old now I believe. I actually forgot to go and finish his book when I was 16 and only remembered about it when I got put in the same class as his daughter lmfao. For those interested, the name of the book is Wiking: A Dutch SS-er on the Eastern front
@@mnemonicpie actually the guy turned out to be a really good guy. Granted he may have fought for the wrong side, but his family are really good people. Though the same can't be said for his wife. Apparently, she's nearing a hundred years old and is really racist to the point that her son and granddaughter are hoping she'd pass on already. Contrary to popular belief, not all SS are fanatics.
Easy to understand, why he did not surrender to Russians. As a SS officer, too little chances not to be shot at once. For comments on "nice guy, not fanatic" get some reading on Plan Ost, Hunger Plan, Commissar Order and ways of SS actions implied those in the USSR. SS members were doomed to die as soon as they were prisoners.
The Dutch split right down the middle, widely regarded as the best and most ruthless resistance movement in Europe but per capita provided the most foreign volunteers to the SS. It is very dangerous to let society polarise politically.😱
Despite the myths sorrounding Sherman tanks, they were for the most part on par with German vehicles. The majority of tank battles were between Shermans and panzer 3/4s of which the Sherman was a match. Even when fighting panthers and tigers, a Sherman with the long barreled 76mm gun could penetrate the frontal armor. The myth that it took several Shermans to take on a panther/tiger came from the fact that American tanks moved in units of at least 5 and since the Germans were fighting a defensive war, it was easier to ambush Americans effectively.
Another factor was how allies and the Germans tally casualties during the war, which makes armchair historians who only look at numbers think casualties were in favor of the Germans. When an American tank is damage beyond what field repairs can perform to make it combat-ready (for example, losing too much armor in combat), the tank is written as a loss for the unit so the unit gets a replacement quickly to keep at full strength while the damaged tank it sent to a repair depot for repair. That also includes tanks that need only two weeks of repair at a repair depot before it was sent back to their unit. When a Geremam tank is damaged but still considered repairable or salvageable, it is still reported as part of the unit and not a loss. That includes tanks that are later scrapped for they were damaged beyond comically repairable (aka, the cost of remaining and replacing parts costs more than making a new tank outside a few recycled parts). For example, I remember reading how an SS Tank Unit in the Battle of Berlin had a reported 48 tanks as part of the unit but only had 12 "active" tanks in service. That is probably why armored casualties ballooned at the end of the war since they reported a unit loss by the number of armored vehicles it has on paper than its actual numbers. Also, the high casualties were possibly part of the reason why the myth the T-34 was a good tank came to be (it was an engineering nightmare that combat was inadequate compared to other medium tanks).
My father was in Grenadier Guards 1939 to 1946. In 1944 he was in Guards Armoured Div which landed in Normandy late June. He said the German 88mm gun was the weapon of the war. Tiger tanks with the 88mm could not be knocked out frontally. Later the Sherman Firefly and other tanks with more powerful guns could.
Very late comment I know… But the 76 Sherman stood no chance of penetrating the hull of the Panther from the front. Even Pershing’s would have trouble doing so. However, the turret is easily penetrated by the 75 from a normal Sherman at a distance of 100m or 800 meters from a Sherman 76.
The real myth is the Americans took out many Tigers at all in North West Europe they managed 3 one of which was being loaded on a rail car at the time. There has been lots of rividsionist claims about the Sherman, usually ignoring the men who had use them to fight the Germans. The 76 were difiately an improvement but were not common until the very end of the war, it certainly was not avaiable in Normandy but then the Americans never faced Tigers in Normandy, they were deployed against the British and Canadians.. Their gun was not remotely equal to the German guns. I'll go with my father's opinion who drove Shermans from the Liri valley up though Italy and then Belgium and Holland. Generally he liked the Sherman but did not regard it even close to most tanks they faced and would always prefer a 17lb Sherman to be in his troop.
Andorra, They declared war on Germany in 1914 and didn’t sign a peace treaty with them until 1945. It wasn’t because they remained belligerent to Germany, just that everyone forgot to invit them to the peace talks LoL
When I was in my youth, back in the early 80’s, I once met a balding old German man working behind the counter at a gas station in Cullman, Alabama. He was old enough to have been a soldier and I was just bold enough to ask him if he fought in WWII. To my shock, he said that he had and that he’d been a Stuka pilot. After talking a little longer, I asked him what he thought of the Americans during WWII. “I couldn’t see anyone well from the air,” he said, “but I heard others who had come in contact with the American soldiers. They fought as hard as anyone else, from what I heard. We lost and I came here because the GI’s in camp treated us kindly and I saw they had more wealth than anyone else we faced on both fronts. I came here and now I own my own gas station, a home and anything else I could want or need. I love America.” By the way, I don’t think fear is a good marker for respect as a soldier. The Japanese were terrified of Americans because they were told they’ll be tortured and eaten by them, not our military prowess. They were shocked when most Americans in Japan treated them with respect after the war. The Germans were afraid of the Commies because of the revenge they expected to face, not because of their military prowess.
A commonly referenced quote is “The reason the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices it on a daily basis." This is believed to have been said by a German General following World War II. It is likely that the General meant the statement as an insult, not as a compliment.
I'm glad there is a good take on the American Army. Their biggest advantage was the flexibility of the battalions and internal squadrons. A squadron leader could grab his team of 10-15 and attack an enemy position in the most outrageous way. Americans lost many soldiers to recklessness but this is why the broke through the in the Ardeness. British and Russians mobilised entire divisions to perform an offensive which was easier to scout and prepare for.
The majority of the german army was on the eastern front. Only 20% was stationed in France during Overlord, with the vast majority in the north were the shoring was expect. Do not compare what is not comparable. An amphibious assault of that size is still a commandable feat, but the Normandy beaches were nearly deserted, and although the victory was indeed vastly tactical and achieved through intel gathering from BOTH the UK and US, the USSR did the heavy lifting on the eastern front, and had to work its way with brute force given the numbers and the size of the frontline
Yeah the real fight for the Americans was in the Pacific. Also the Nazis weren’t on the offensive in the west rather the East so of course they would have more troops in the East trying to knock the soviets out as quickly as they could.
I'm a Brit and our foe of the ages was the French; to this day we take the piss out of the Froggies lol. However, as much as this hurts, it pisses me off when Americans call the French derogatory names such as, Surrender monkeys". The French are a fine fighting nation with a fantastic military history. If it wasn't for the French the USA would of struggled to gain independence from us Brits. So it's nice to see the Germans acknowledged just how good they were/are.....Froggy barstewards:-)
As a French, I burst out laughing to your comment. It's a good representation of our love-hate relationship, you rosebeef. And no need to be pissed for the Americans behavior, every cultured human being know that what they say is not true, so the French generally just ignore. PS: In France, the feeling of "hate" for the Brits almost don't exist anymore, except in history class. If you ask a French person what is their opinion on the UK, you'll find out that we actually love your culture :) (sorry for my crappy English 😅)
Gross get a room🤮.. anyway … as an American and former soldier this is the first I’ve ever heard “ surrender monkey” lol! Funny.. .. I did meet a French dude in DC once outside of a night club.. he ran into the parking garage and I stopped him to see what was wrong.. he was crying and had a bloody nose screaming “ I don’t understand why are y’all so brutal “ lol I have him a smoke and drove him to his hotel, he started crying again and tried to give me money for “ being his friend “ lmao. I didn’t expect of course.. I felt bad for him and wanted to help.. A personal anecdote admittedly but the encounter did shape my perception of the French as delicate ppl
Let’s be honest the US soldiers were never defending their own country and fighting on another continent. If we were ever defending our own borders or country the world would see a completely different military. My dad was wounded twice in Germany when he truly wanted to fight the Japanese, since they had attacked us.
"The reason the American Army does so well in war is because war is chaos and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis." Almost certainly apocryphal, but still probably not far off. sm
You can have the bravest, best trained soldiers in the world. Without logistics and supplies, they're eventually doomed. Pretty much the story of the Germans in WW1 and WW2. Did great initially, but eventually found themselves over stretched and under supplied.
While there are a lot of people quick to remind everyone that 'British' doesn't just mean the British (e.g. English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish etc) it also seems that some would take that so far as to completely swindle the British natives themselves out of any credit for being a legitimately respected fighting force _without_ the Empire/Commonwealth forces. It can go completely the other way where it seems as though the British were nothing without Canadians and Australians etc, which is totally not true. The vast majority of the British Imperial forces were the 4-4.5 million UK born British soldiers (not including 960,000-1,000,000 British personnel in the Royal Navy, RFA and RNFAA or any of the British personnel in the RAF; which, yes was also contributed to by many international pilots e.g. during the Battle of Britain) While it is correct not to forget or underestimate the impact of these contributing peoples, it is also important not to overestimate them, either, something which often seems to be forgotten in favour of portraying the British from the UK as supposedly 'stealing credit' when really it was always a combined effort and anyone with a brain knew it. This also says nothing about the vast impact of British Intelligence from MI5 and MI6 during WWII, or the great developments into Special Forces and special operatives (e.g. SBS, SAS, SOE) that were established in WWII. Credit where it is due but that doesn't mean taking it away from anyone either.
Northern Ireland is a part of the UK but is very definitely not British. There have been entire wars faught solely over that. An important distinction.
@@brendanm6921 I thought it best to include them under the category of 'UK' because it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland', not just 'Great Britain'. It is reasonable to include them in the list of English, Scottish, Welsh etc. Because I didn't want to just put 'Irish', I wanted to make the distinction between 'Irish' and 'Northern Irish', more because it would be more likely someone would complain if I had not. Calm down.
@@lefoix4629 No it isn't. Britain is England, Scotland and Wales. The UK, the British isles and Britain aren't the same things. Trust me, I'm a Brit. I think I know. There are some parts of Northern Ireland where you could get a very hostile response for calling them British. In the past, many people have even died because of it.
@@brendanm6921 "If you live in Northern Ireland, you will need to visit the Regional Passport Office in Belfast if you need a British passport urgently." They are British. Same way the people from the Falklands are British.
That story about the German army and US logistics fits. I remember hearing that a persistent belief in the Wehrm@cht after Normandy was that every US GI got issued a jeep after graduating boot camp.
Well that's a bit of a false dilemma. No private jeeps, sure, but afaik the US army was close to fully motorized. Meaning they were transported by motorized vehicles over larger distances, rather than on foot. The Wehrmacht was far less mechanized. German logistics relied heavily on trains. The reason was that 1) trains are very efficient at carrying large loads over large distances and 2) trains run on coal, which Germany had plenty. Trucks, tanks, jeeps all run on oil, which they had very little. This became a huge problem when they invaded the Soviet Union, because they soviets used a different rail gauge, so the Nazis had to either rebuild the rail line or try to capture Russian trains (which was not easy of course). So most of the Wehrmacht was actually on foot or horse-based. I believe I read the figure of 80% somewhere. This created significant tactical problems for the German Blitzkrieg tactics. The core principle is that armored divisions break deep into the enemy lines to make encircling pincer movements. The infantry would then catch up from behind to complete the encirclement. However, because the infantry is of course way slower, the panzers would often find themselves way ahead, unable to push on further because of lacking infantry support. Add to that the climate and the fact that most roads were unpaved. During spring and autumn, the whole countryside would turn into a giant pool of mud, making it a logistical nightmare.
@@masr8875 The rail gauge switch is a nothing-burger. The Krauts only needed to shift one rail -- inwards -- and re-nail it. A simple gauge stick -- think 2x4 -- was sufficient to establish the new gauge -- common labor could do the job. In 1873, the ENTIRE US southern rail grid was re-gauged -- this way -- in 72-hours. Admittedly, materials were pre-staged, the boys trained. The Krauts found it easy-peasy to re-gauge the rails. The KILLER was the Soviet destruction of: Water towers; Sleepers/Ties; Bridges -- think of the thousands of dinky ones -- these proved to be a nightmare. In the USSR, water towers were located much further apart than Europe. The Krauts found that they had to tow an extra water tank -- all too often. (These had to come out of their ears.) Even back in the 1860s it was discovered that it's easy-peasy to destroy sleepers -- with a railroad plough/plow. Adolf never laid in enough sleepers for Barbarossa. He ended up stealing ties from all over conquered Europe -- second hand sleepers. About HALF of all railroad ties were pulled up from France and Belgium -- to send into the USSR... rails, too. This just went on and on. After the war, this destruction was deemed a blessing -- by the envious British. (!) But, that's another story. The bridges that killed the Krauts: the tiny ones that you never notice... the ones over trivial creeks. The Krauts had conquered at least 10,000 of these puppies... all of which the Soviets had blown up. Adolf needed wood for them too. His boys were running all over Europe cutting down trees to replace the stuff lost.
My mother was in the occupation of the Netherlands and even the Dutch feared the Russians more than their Nazi occupiers. Her sister hid a German deserter, he deserted because he got the news that his unit was being transferred to the Eastern Front against the Russians. The German soldiers knew those that were shipped to Russia didn't return. This deserter married my aunt after the war.
I think one of Russia's biggest advantages is that they adapt so quickly and will try anything that has a prayer. That's why they'll lose at first but as long as they last till winter then come spring you're fighting a whole new army from last year
You think that the millions of tons of war material, courtesy of the USA, had a little to do with that? Naw, communists march with grass and unicorns as their diet, right?
Americans strike a great balance bet. having a defined hierarchy, but giving individuals at each level quite a bit of room to make decisions on the fly. (Of course, the Americans also supplied all the allies, incl. Soviets.) With the losses incurred by Soviets, it's no surprise that at war's end, Germans would rather surrender to anybody but them.
Out of the allies the Mericans where the ones who allowed for a lot of freedom, but it was Germany who developed Auftragstaktik. So it wasnt something which was really new to the germans.
@@TheOnlyOneStanding8079 My understanding is it literally means "Mission tactics" - essentially meaning successfully completing the mission is key, no matter how you get it done
@@MrDdaland yes there is the "Befehlstaktik" I would say Order tactic were everything is planed so for example if you have to take a fortification the troops get the exact orders from the high command how they should attack when they should take what room or floor etc and the "Auftragstaktik" mission tactic only says you should take this fortification until for example 0700 o clock and then your group leader can make a plan how he want to proceed and if there are some difficulties he can very fast switch his plans and optimize the attack plan on the current situation
While of course it is 100% true to acknowledge the United States as the Arsenal of Democracy through WW2, I would like to give a biased and honourable mention to the British for supplying the Soviets with 1/3 of all received supplies. Not as impressive as 2/3 I'll grant you ;)
I think the countries in Europe might’ve fought harder because they were fighting for their very existence. Most of the times in their own countries . America was never really fighting for its very existence
@@achillesrodriguezxx3958 actually it’s my understanding that the official policy of the US government at the time was “Germany first”. I think the understanding was that Japan was a foregone conclusion. Nobody thought the Japanese were going to win, including some of the Japanese. But with that being said on both fronts, even if America lost both wars they were probably no plans to occupy United States. And its a lot harder to motivate yourself fighting in a foreign country that’s not directly threatening your homeland then fighting for your homeland. The British pilots for instance , were actively trying to stop their fellow countrymen from being bombed , Which made them better
@@MrSanford65 I think American troops in WW2 are too often underrated by our (British) mythology. It's really annoying when Hollywood does the opposite and airbrushes out the contribution of other countries in their accounts. But that's no excuse for us to do the equivalent. After D-Day, the US military was enormously effective. They also avoided some of the most stupid mistakes Hitler made, like diverting resources into massive super-tanks that were too heavy to cross bridges. Rather than macho posturing over who had the tank with the biggest gun, the US build huge quantities of cheap reliable workhorse military vehicles.
@@thomasstyan2066 I would of thought British troops are more underrated, I mean how many people know that the British a long with the Canadians faced 80 percent of the German armour in France? Not enough is told of the huge struggle to take Caen against Germanys best troops.
We didn’t because it wasn’t necessary. America could put men, equipment, and resources where they needed to be. That’s how wars are won the vast majority of the time. Despite what Hollywood likes to portray.
For me all young men who fought in that war regardless of nationality were equally capable of acts of extraordinary bravery. Cultural differences were only surface deep and had only a small effect. It was the political leadership of nations that decided how effective those young men would be. However if I were a German back then, I would be most scared of capture by Russians and vice versa.
Coming soon. Part 3 Italy’s views on all the allies: British empire - feared USSR - feared US - Feared Germany - Feared. Hitler - ‘WTF?’ Mussolini - ‘you scare me’
The enemy? His sense of duty was no less than yours, I deem. You wonder what his name is, where he comes from, and if he really was evil at heart. What lies or threats led him on this long march from home, or he would not rather have stayed there... in peace? J R R Tolkien
My Opa was in the 8th Panzer Division. When I interviewed him in the 70s for my high school project he told me that the men would sit around and talk among themselves. They would say “We may take all this ground, but how do we hold it?” He also said Germany lost the war in 42 at Stalingrad. After that his goal was not to do anything stupid and make it home alive….if there was a home to come back too. He also mentioned that the Russian soldier was good. The generals would accept large casualties. Most of them were uneducated. He said it was simple math. The Russians could replace their losses and Germany could not….
Same when the Russians would attack the Finns during the Winter War! The Russians would send wave after wave of men against the outmanned Finns who were well positioned and would just keep mowing them down with machine guns as the Russians tried to attack across an open field. Granted these "Russians" were probably forced conscripts of many nationalities that would be forced into combat.
Notice how the British were regarded as the best which is accurate. Also American Gens were poor compaired tp British and other allied Generals. Hollywood never shows this.
It’s hilarious that Germans felt Americans were “cheating” by using our industry to defeat them. Reminds me of the knife fight in Butch Cassidy. “Rules? In a knife fight?”
I think they were trying to imply that had they both had equal resources Germany would have defeated the US through the skill of there soldiers rather than just sheer numbers.
By this standard the Germans cheated massively in Poland 1939. They outnumbered the Poles 3-1 and got the USSR to also attack Poland on September 17th. Or for that matter the unfair power advantage the Germans had against Norway, Greece, funny how hypocrital those Wehrmacht boys can be.
@@ii8215 all i can say is thank God the Allies won. In Europe, it was the Soviets that sacrificed to deplete the Germans of men and materiel. The bottomline is “so the f*ck what?” We won, you lost
The first victory against the German army in World War Two did not come in Western Europe or amid the ruins of the eastern front. It took place at the small port of Tobruk in North Africa, at the hands of 9th Australian Division.
the first defeat of the nazis was the battle of narvick by the royal navy. the second defeat was the battle of britain by the royal airforce and a few allies.
My mums Polish & as the video says Hitler thought Slavonic people had little or no right to live. Her dad fought Hitler in the Polish airforce, but what’s just as bad is Stalin sent my mum &female family to a slave camp in Siberia, he aided Hitler before the war, invaded Poland together& guarded Hitlers back until summer 1941& the Kremlin is now run by similar creatures.
Yeah mate my great grandpa was almost send to the gulag (managed to evade it) for being married to a polish. However what the Nazis did to slavs is uncomparable to anything Stalin could dream off. I hope Putins speaches of not killing civilians are true althrough i dont think he even knows what he says at this point
I know back in WW1 they feared the Americans pretty badly. Although it took us a while to get used to the front, Americans had been noted in their ability to keep pushing through. Like when one sector was pushed back, another sector would keep sending it. Even if that met taking large casualties, our boys were good at putting the Germans on the back foot. So I'd imagine there was more respect for the American army in WW2 by older veterans of WW1.
A lot of the US WWI stuff was propaganda it isn't true. Like the Devil Dog US marines thing, it's simply not true. It was dreamt up & propagated by the Americans themselves, the Germans said no such thing.
Il faut éviter de répondre à ce genre de commentaire… parfois, cela sort de la bouche des américains, et ils oublient bien trop souvent que si ils existent aujourd’hui, c’est grâce à la France.
@@fostosenytb6407 Les Américains n'ont vraiment pas oublié l'aide française pendant la révolution. Mais il nous semble que les Français ont oublié que nous les avons aidés dans les deux guerres mondiales. Lorsque l'AEF débarqua en France en 1917, Pershing déclara : « Lafayette, nous sommes ici
They obviously feared the Russians the most because of their brutality. As for the Americans being undisciplined, what German soldiers were referring to is the Americans being very unpredictable because they had a habit of not following their own doctrine and rules in battle. So this frustrated senior German leadership. There was even a well known Field Marshal when he was confronted by Hitler who wanted answers had responded by saying how can you defeat an army that doesn't follow its own rules.
I've heard that in humorous anecdotes but doubt there's any truth behind it. Americans probably came up with it like they did with the myth that marines were called teufelhunden or devil dogs. The Germans simply had that old school ideal of Prussian discipline which emphasizes outward appearance. The view being that most people do not see the soldier's performance on the field and only how he looks so wearing uniform according to regulations and standing straight is expected for repuation and morale. Images that portrayed scruffy troops weren't published in Germany while in the US only the top brass was that pedantic like Gen. Patton who wanted to ban even the cartoon characters Willie and Joe due to their portrayal of troops.
@@TheSuspectOnFoot nah there is truth to the fact Americans didn’t do things according the allies strategies. So you could argue some Germans had a problem with that but there’s no real evidence of all Germans or even many. So there is a chance some of that is true or at least just exaggerated.
@@TheSuspectOnFoot The US military had and to this day continues to try to have a high level of personal initiative with its members. The guy on the ground usually knows whats happening better than the guy in a tent miles behind him, so they're encouraged to make a better choice or take opportunities if they see them. So it's not really a lie, they're unpredictable because at any point someone might make a different decision based on what's happening at that moment. Whether or not it works out. That'd certainly seem like being unpredictable or not following orders to an adversary, especially one as tightly regimented as the Heer/Wehrmacht. As for doctrine, just look at the US WWII Tank Destroyer doctrine to see how closely that was followed.
I'd like to know what the Germans really thought about the Japanese. From what little I know about the relationship, it was of mere convenience as a Japanese were one of the few Nations willing to Ally with Germany and align their views to some degree. But as I understand it the relations were not very tight-knit, and to reiterate, I'd really like to know what the Germans actually thought of the Japanese.
The Japanese were viewed as the master race of the Asians. But were still, of course, considered interiors. Definitely an alliance of convenience. Vise versa.
Just about the only German servicemen who interacted with the Japanese were those few submariners who made the voyage to Japan to deliver valuable commodities needed by the Japanese war effort. An ex submariner myself, I once flew across the Atlantic seated next to an ex Kriegsmarine U-boat commander and we compared notes on WWII diesel boats and nuclear powered Polaris submarines. It goes without saying that a three month cruise on a nuke boat is a luxury cruise compared to a tiny diesel boat being pursued by the British, Canadians and Americans all at the same time. I was surprised to hear that German submarine quartermasters were warrant officers while American quartermasters are enlisted ratings.
You may wish to consider the impact of the Canadians in the war against Germany and Italy. From their major role in the "Battle of the Atlantic" in guarding convoys and hunting U-Boats, to their "Devil's Brigade" with the Americans and Juno Beach landing on D-Day in Normandy, the Canadians fought valiantly. Canada may have been a smaller country by population, but they fought well above their weight class. Bravo Zulu.
Big facts... The Canadians fought like mad men... Rumor had it the Germans would try and avoid the Canadian troops at all cost because they were impossible to kill or get around.. The Canadians were the only country with a positive KDR against the Nazis
@@robertpearson8798 which is sad because Canada had its own objectives and beach head on D-Day.. I think it was Juno beach. They were a vital part of the allied war effort.
@@mikehunt5637 We’re talking about World War 2 and Canada produced more than 800,000 military transport vehicles, 50,000 tanks, 40,000 field, naval, and anti-aircraft guns, and 1,700,000 small arms.
I'm fairly certain most Australian units were deployed on the pacific front. Dnt quote me on that but that may be why they weren't mentioned. They also didn't mention Canadian soldiers but I assume that's cause they saw them as nearly the same as Americans.
@ParkHillProjects right, they probably fought mostly Italians there. I love Australia, but to be fair idk if the Germans would've seen them as a threat seeing that Australia lost a war against emus lmaooo. Jk jk jk, ik the Australian military is very competent.
@@justinbutler591 Worth reading up on Australia's involvement in the Nth African and European theatres. They fought in Syria, Libya, Greece all the way from 1939 to the 2nd battle of El Alamein. Yes, some were withdrawn to the Pacific after japan's entry, the 9th Division stayed on for Alamein. They also held Tobruk in its first seige, (the one when it wasn't taken by the Germans, unlike the second seige). Australian airmen served in Bomber and Fighter Commands throughout the war crewing one of the Dam Buster Lancasters, amongst other things. Rommel certainly respected Australian troops, and the NZers too. If I recall he said something like wanting to have Australians to attack and NZers to defend and he would be unbeatable. He also said that they were the elite troops of the British Empire, for what that's worth.
Always have to give credit to the polish pilots who joined the RAF and fought in the battle of Britain under the 303 squadron. They had more collective air victories than any other squadron during the battle of britain.
So in other words the UK gave up and sacrificed its empire for Europe and its people. Clearly the UK didn't do it for itself or its own benefit. Fast forward to now and how Europe is treating the UK, it doesn't seem like a worthy sacrifice, guess its assured the UK won't help a 3rd time
@@apollo-eu4fk I mean, the British empire was the only allied faction that chose to be in the war - the Soviets were invaded, the Polish were invaded, the Chinese were invaded, the norwegians were invaded the various balkan nations were invaded, the French knew they were on the chopping block if they sat by and America was attacked and Germany declared war on them. Out of all the powers, only Britain and its brothers in the commonwealth fought for others, because the alternative for Britain just swapped France with Germany for the commander of the continent and aimed them at the Soviets who we also didn't like after fighting them in the Russian civil war, however the Nazis were bad even by oldschool Britain's sketchy standards for conquest so we felt obliged to step in.
@@userchannel6237 No shit colonisation was a bad thing in retrospect, but people don't act in retrospect they do what they think is best at the time and with the modes of thinking of their time. If you had a choice between attacking someone weaker than you to grow more powerful, or standing by helpless while someone who hates you grows strong enough to kill/enslave you, your family and friends and then force the survivors to attack yet more people under the banner of their new master (rendering your sacrifice pointless), what would you choose? Maybe you would sacrifice yourself and your loved ones, but would you expect everyone else to do the same? In a time as cut-throat as medieval/rennaissance Europe, that was basically the choice that rulers and millitary leaders had to make on behalf of entire nations. You might argue I'm justifying colonialism (that is not my intent; it was still fucked up and should not be repeated), but the better question is why do most people not consider that the 'evil colonialists' were also people faced with their own choices and reasoning? It's ironic that we so easily dehumanise those who dehumanise others, and then wonder why cycles of cruelty repeat. It is unfortunate that largescale power in our world rellies on the number and degree to which you exploit others - and it's so much easier/faster to do so without seeking their consent first. Those who seek power even for good reasons still do evil things, but they are better than those who seek power for entirely selfish reasons. It's fortunate then that we now live in a somewhat saner world most of us can take the easy choices without allowing those without even the pretense of morality to become unstoppable. Except oh wait, evil/self-absorbed people with great power still exist and there's no moral figure to oppose them who also has the power to make an impact, I wonder why...
My father fought during WW2 he was in the Royal Artillery firstly at Dunkirk, then after managing to get back to Britain he got shipped out to North Africa, (el Alamein) then on to Sicily, and Italy (monte cassino) finally ending the war stationed in northern Italy. While stationed in northern Italy his unit was posted as guards to a German POW camp I always remember him telling me if you had German officers in charge of British soldiers they would be unbeatable. He didn't rate British officers obviously. The best British general he reckoned he served under was General Alexander, he didn't rate Montgomery. Even though Montgomery is the more well known. I never asked my father what he thought of American troops, and in turn he never mentioned anything about them, and to be honest I don't think he had a lot of interaction with them during his time in the war.
Your list of places your father fought matches nearly the same as one of my grandfathers, though he mentioned Tobruk as well. He was in the Cheshire regiment. Wish I had been older and could have talked more about his time in the war as adult to him. RIP Charley Graves.
My father was a professional soldier 1935 to 1958, and fought in France in 1940, and France to Netherlands 1944-45. He, too, admired Alexander, and a few others, but not Montgomery, and I know that he and his colleagues thought him conceited, and not very clever. I've read quite a lot about Montgomery since then, and believe him a flawed man, keen to represent himself as better than he believed he was, and believing himself better than he actually was. In other words, he was no genius general. However, he was competent, and quite good at raising the morale of soldiers, even if officers were harder to persuade.
One comment was correct. America's greatest strength was our industrial capacity. A German tank officer was quoted as saying " A Tiger tank was worth 10 Shermans but the Americans always came with 11 Shermans." The USA fed and supplied not only ourselves but our allies as well. That bodes badly for this century. The Chinese now dominate industrial manufacturing.
Yes, low end manufacturing of mid tier goods. Not an opinion, but fact. Any good which requires high end conductors comes from Taiwan, Japan, or Korea. Not to mention China is sitting on a demographic time bomb and they import 85% of their energy and the inputs needed to feed their people. One US carrier group placed in the Indian Ocean or the straight of Malacca and Chinese energy supplies are cut off. Six months later you have half a billion cold, starving and dying Chinese… and they lack the naval capacity to do anything to stop it
My Farther in law who passed away in 2014 fought in WW2 as a Royal Navy Aviator…..he trained in the US and had huge regard for the fighting spirit of the Americans. He saw time and again this manifest itself in huge acts of risk taking where the British would generally be more cautious.
I imagine Germans were more nervous about fighting Russians and British, but the thing with Americans like us, a lot of us that were descended from German immigrants and lived in areas of America with heavy gun ownership, were sent to the Philippines, including my Swiss grandfather on my mom's side, for obvious reasons and to avoid communication confusion.
When occupying Berlin many years ago I met an older German who said that he had fought the Americans from Normandy all the way to Germany. He said that they soon learned to not shoot at the Americans unless they absolutely had to because when they did shoot there would be a million dollars worth of Artillery shells coming their way AND that he had previously fought on the Russian front and had thought that nothing could be worse than Russian artillery, until he came under American artillery fire. The Germans thought the British infantry was better and that the American armor was better, but they feared the US artillery.
History will tell us that with other things being relatively equal, the military that can supply itself with the most equipment and supplies will most probably win a long war. I believe it was Patton who said amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics. In both wars the Germans were simply out produced, out manned and out supplied.
@@billwilson3609 But he knew the importance of supply - particularly fuel. That is what got him in trouble sometimes as he poached supplies and argued with his superiors over logistics.
@@derjaeger3321 Patton was well aware of the importance of logistics being a graduate of West Point and serving in Pershing's expedition against Poncho Villa where they used motor vehicles and tracked agricultural tractors to haul supplies, troops and horses thru the desert. George learned how to draw supplies during that, during WW1 and as the head the first US Army tank school. He attended the US Army War College that only taught how to determine how much supplies units would need when at base, during maneuvers and in action then how to get those distributed once delivered by the quartermasters corps. During the Louisiana Maneuvers, Patton's army was directed to take Shreveport from the south. Patton decided he could send his armor unit thru neutral East Texas to seize the city from the north where it was undefended yet couldn't obtain the tank trucks full of gasoline to accompany them. Since George was wealthy, he handed out cash to his tankers so they could refill their fuel tanks at the gas stations along the roads in Texas. They captured the city and George won a medal that was taken away after ranking officers in the losing army complained about Patton not following orders. Patton also had problems obtaining replacement parts for his unit's trucks and tanks from the Quartermasters Corps during maneuvers and training so ordered those from Sears Roebuck over the telephone and had them rush shipped at his expense. Patton helped develop the plans the invasion of North Africa and Sicily so made sure that the troops had plenty of supplies. He also took part in planning the Normandy operations. Once in action as a field commander, he expected to receive supplies on a regular basis and didn't care to hear excuses from Bradley and Ike on why they couldn't. When Patton couldn't obtain the gas needed to continue his advance, Bradley ordered him to stop once his tanks started running out of gas. Patton radioed back that he would then order the troops to continue their advance on foot. That prompted Bradley to create what became the Red Ball Express to rush fuel and supplies to Patton.
@@billwilson3609 You will get no argument from me. I am certainly no Military Historian but I view Patton as as complete a General as Sherman. Patton had his faults of course he was much more a maverick than Sherman and he was his own worse enemy with his personal views, and had a bit of difficulty working within the political sensitivities of the allied command, but he was as fine a complete battlefield General as you could get in WW II. Could you imagine him missing the opportunities to be had early at Anzio? However I am not sure how he would be in the defensive. We were lucky to have the talents of Ike, Bradley and Patton. Ike could deal with the Machiavellian politics of the Allies, Bradley had the personality to keep the disparate needs of his command going and Patton the aggressive charger. Plus the multitude of GIs who slogged it out and adapted on the go. Truly the Greatest Generation.
@@derjaeger3321 The Anzio landing was the brainstorm of Winston Churchill. He proposed it after General Alexander replaced Ike as commander of the Med Operations. US Generals Clark and Lucas thought it was a stupid and told that to Alexander but had to go along with his orders to plan and carry out Operation Shingle. Lucas had the element of surprise so managed to have 36,000 troops and 3,200 vehicles ashore at the end of the day. He sent them a few miles inland to take up defensive positions while ships began unloading supplies. The Army and Navy still had problems doing that in an organized fashion so the various supplies were intermixed in piles where the troops had to search thru them to bullets, rations and other badly needed front line supplies. Lucas decided to hold off on offensive operations until he got that mess sorted out. The US Navy and Army were having the same problem with beach head supplies in the Pacific so in 1944 the Navy sent over a trouble shooter named Commander Richard Milhous Nixon to study the situation to figure out solutions. He did which got beach head supplies delivered and distributed in an more organized matter for the rest of the war.
Eisenhower was once quoted something to the effect that the two best weapons he had at his disposal were the bulldozer and the Dakota. Logistics matter. A lot.
Thanks for the reupload. I will make the same argument that I made last time before the original was taken down - that I would take Germany's opinion of the US with a grain of salt given their perception of America as a decadent nation with no martial military culture such as the European powers had. German leadership could respect their European adversaries given their long history of warfare with each other and appreciation for martial nobility over domestic freedoms and liberty. America, however, had no military history with Germany outside of the First World War and did not have aristocratic families to carry on military traditions in the same way that Prussians and Bavarians did. It's understandable that many German officers and soldiers would attempt to reduce American victories to a mere triumph of material over combat acuity given their professional army with its hundreds of years at the forefront of modern warfare lost to an upstart nation led by citizen soldiers. In other words, they were coping.
Several point in reply to your argument: Yes. Germany did have a bad opinion of the US at the time (as noted in the clip.) America didn’t have much of a ‘military culture’ is also correct. The only conflicts the US had been involved in other than as an ally, (excluding Civil war / Indian was) were the war of 1812 (a draw), The Spanish / American war (Philippines), and the Mexican war (Correct me if I’m wrong but the same is still true [unless you include Granada]) none of these were modern warfare against a modern mechanised army. ‘Domestic freedoms and liberty’. If you were white (and preferably wealthy) ‘No military history outside the First World War’. Germany faced the US for couple of months in WW1. Fought along side the US in China (56 days). And many of the Mexican ‘advisors’ in the US Mexico War were German they also visited US war games. N,B. The only military history between the Germans and British was the Napoleonic wars (Prussians 1800s), German mercenaries (Hessians 1760s) and 4 years of WW1 (so not so different). The American Troops started out WW2, against the Germans in a less than exemplary way, and as they say “mud sticks.” To the Germans the US were Interventionists who didn’t want to fight for freedom. When they finally entered the war, Germany saw the US troops were badly trained, badly equipped and badly led. (Catrina Pass). Luckily the US was quick to learn. The troops got better, the equipment got either better or good enough with superior numbers, and the commanders became some of the best in the world (Eisenhower, Bradley, Patton, etc). Re professional army, The German army was highly efficient from top down to the lowest private, they all new their jobs and could also do the job of the man above them, if called for. The British army was similar but only really up to Non Coms (NCO), a professional army of “lions led by donkeys.” The french were mainly conscripts, with the same type of leaders as the British, The Russian officers had practically all been shot. The US leadership still thought that cavalry was the answer to everything. ‘professional army with its hundreds of years at the forefront of modern warfare’. Germany had NO army to speak of in the1920s, the army that conquer France in ‘39 could hardly be called modern, mostly Pz1’s and Pz2’s. By 1945 the German army was still one of the least mechanised army’s in the war, relying more on horses than horse power. They would never have been able to match the material output of the USA, even if their factories weren’t being destroyed by the Mighty 8th. The US output of vehicle supplied the forces of the US, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Free French, Poles, Russians, etc. Never underestimate the achievement of the power of the US factory output. We don’t, (we’ve only just finished repaying the lend lease).
@@wyverncoch4430 >"If you were white (and preferably wealthy)" That wasn't the point I was making. My point was that America's interests have historically been confined to resolving their own issues in pursuit of freedom and liberty. Whether they were successful in doing so is irrelevant to the broader discussion of how old world empires perceived the US because of their domestic interests compared to the empire building mentality of European nations (at the time). >"Germany faced the US for couple of months in WW1." I already mentioned the First World War. Regardless, Britain fought in WWI far longer than the US did, and England had a much longer history overall with Germany and its predecessor states. The Napoleonic Wars lasted over a decade with GB and the German states fighting alongside each other throughout the entire ordeal. Several wars occurred prior to the unification of Germany between the Holy Roman Empire and England. And the two empires would have worked together on numerous occasions for mutual colonial interests in places like Africa. >"Germany had NO army to speak of in the1920s" Yes, and that was the ONLY time they were without an army. That's what we call an exception. >"the army that conquer France in ‘39 (1940) could hardly be called modern, mostly Pz1’s and Pz2’s" It was absolutely modern by 1940 standards. France wasn't going into battle against Germany with M1 Abrams and A10 Warthogs. At least German tanks had radios. French tankers were still using flags to communicate. >"Never underestimate the achievement of the power of the US factory output" Right, but what I'm saying don't use America's material superiority as a crutch to excuse German losses and dismiss tactical US victories; as many people have a bad habit of doing.
@@wyverncoch4430 despite all that the western front from 44 to 45. ~70% of the personnel and casualties were american. meaning they fought as well as the brits.
Why would you take that opinion with a grain of salt? That opinion was made before the war, then it was proven during the war, And what martial military culture does American have? Manifest Destiny and losing to a colony in 1812? Or how about losing to a bunch of farmers with straw hats and ak-47s? America quite literally has the most embarrassing war history of any major fighting country. You lose more troops in 1 year than france and Britiain etc lost in 5 years of harder fighting. Not to mention all the war atrocities from Americans in modern war, and the friendly fire, you can find more American friendly fire videos than successful operations.
America had soldiers of Japanese descent fighting the Germans and soldiers of German descent fighting the Japanese. If the French were good, fine, we had lots of soldiers of French descent. If the British were good, fine, we had lots of soldiers of British descent. If the Russians were good, fine, we had lots of soldiers of Russian descent. The second largest ethnic group in America at the start of WWII was the Germans. I can think of two men of German descent who were pretty important fighting men for the United States in WWII, Admiral Nimitz and General Eisenhower, both born in Texas.
Japanese weren't allowed to fight and instead kept interned since America didn't trust any Asiatics, be them Chinese or Japanese they were all seen as part of the 'yellow peril'
@@joshjonson2368 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States) Yes they were allowed to, and not only that, they made up the vast majority of the most decorated unit in US history
Germany only lost, because the US had help by Soldier Boy, vampire E. Northmann and S. Salvatore, Steve Rogers, Wolverine ... thats unfair, just like the US economy, the Russian manpower and killing German officers instead of normal soldiers. And the biggest respectless cheat was the overuse of air strikes. It is time for the ancient Greece warfare: 1 person each duel each other and who ever looses surrenders. Wars cost so much: destroys lives, wealth, nature, it is stupid.
I heard something about a German veteran who said he admired the Russians for their courage and the British for their stubbornness. When asked about the Americans he went into a tirade of cursing and angrily said he hated the Americans' overuse of artillery and grenades.
@@bradleyheck7204 but when it comes to respect and admiration it makes sense for the US not to have been ranked too highly. The European powers had their industrial bases bombed on a nightly basis for years, whilst the USA massively profited and built up its industrial base purely due to its happenstance of geographical isolation from the war. USA benefitted massively from british tech sharing such as the Tizard mission for radar and even the maud commitee and transferring the insights of the tube alloys project (the original and most developed nuclear programme) which was subsumed into the manhatten project. When germans encounter problems from the british or the french, they are encountering problems from pure skill. when they encounter the artillery that the USA can manufacture efficiently from pure luck of being isolated from the problems of war? It's not really that impressive.
@@bradleyheck7204 Right, I'm just answering specifically in terms of respect/ admiration since there's a lot of Americans in these comments seemingly butthurt that european countries received more respect and the Americans didn't. Quantity in this case is just "having a large population" (and one free from being bombed each night). That's great and all, it's just not impressing anyone because it's kinda just luck and happenstance. So no on really thinks your artillery and sht was cool. But skilled soliders, disciplined and ingenius tactics, bravery, resolve etc, which the germans saw in other armies? That is cool.
Funnily enough, it was the Soviet Red army the one that broke the Wehrmacht(Battle of Kursk) and ended up crushing the brunt of the German man military. Goes to show that underestimating an enemy is very dangerous.
Nonsense the Russians through lives away without a care. Millions taken prisoner and slaughtered by Russian incompetence. Western democracies couldn’t do that. You haven’t a clue.
Of course, he disproves it in his conclusion he makes, but it must be from his own identity bias. The first world war was a trauma for the german and french soldiers. English soldiers were there too, but not the main forces germans had to fight. England and France were the two superpower in europe for the last centuries, but while english superpower came from its navy, france's came from its land army. And they were feared by everyone in europe that they almost entirely conquered even by fighting them almost all at once. Germany never thought of winning agaisnt the french so quickly and easily in the second war. I mean if you exclude the numbers advantage and logistic supplies advantage that both americans and russians had, the french army was the best in efficency after the germans newly empowerement. The two reasons why france decayed and lead to germany taking the power house place was demographic of course, and also the mediocre elite behaviour ( as said, french army were lions lead by donkeys not refering to english army as said in the video). And looking at culturally and not military, it wasn't again a debate on whom had the greatest too.
@@alexisbelfer7881 The saying in German is more like "They are lion led by sheep" about the French soldier and it does not come from WW2 or WW1 it's much more ancient (Antiquity/Medieval era)
@BORAT SAGDIYEV Le Pen was never elected in France ;) When the blacks americans soldiers fought bravely during WW1, France offer them to parade in Paris. But US government said no because they were blacks, and France made them parade somewhere else, in a smaller place. When the liberation came during WW2, Americans accepted to go by Paris on one condition : soldiers parading must all be white. And this time, this should apply to French soldiers as well.
There seems to be some interesting contrast between the Germans “mixed” views on the American army in WWII and the views of Germans who had to fight US Marines in WWI.
I think that the German soldiers were most afraid of the Italians. They never knew exactly when they would switch sides and shoot you in the back.
@V not wrong
Albert Kesselring said when overseeing the defense of Italy that he had never seen such brave soldiers led by bigger buffoons.
@V well they did leave their most veteran troops and commanders in East Africa where they fought and surrendered to the South Africans and Nigerians.
@@gidi3250 Nice Yukari (Girls und Panzer) profile picture
They sure haven't won one in a while since the Roman days. Mama Mia.!!! That's italian.
I remember reading an excerpt from a German soldier late in the war and by late 44' the Germans observed American tanks and trucks and AFVs sitting their idling while doing nothing and they knew the war was over. By that time Germany had to ration their fuel and oil having lost Africa and the Caucuses. The Germans feared the allies and their ability to readily resupply above all.
I always find "what if" scenarios absurd for this and other reasons at this time. Like "what if" the nazis had an extra 10,000 trucks, tanks, aircraft, whatever. What good would it do? Their armies had already been ground down to nubs, their 'allies' (italy, hungary, romania) all gone, almost no fuel for what they *did* have and the last resort of making badly armed citizen militias of children and elderly for last ditch defense. No men, no fuel, no weapons and all three are necessary for war.
As they should have. Because that’s what doomed them. Logistics win wars.
Even worse was when the Japanese learned America had a ship that had only 1 purpose. It made ice cream and distributed it to other ships
lol the German feared the Russian/Soviets and with good cause the German Nazi and regular army committed the most harsh brutality against the Russian/Soviet people killing at least 20 million civilian's and 10 million soldiers!
@@curtiscriscoe367 in Supernova in the East Dan Carlin tells of accounts of Japanese soldiers surrendering because the Marines were cooking up food that they could smell. The Japanese were sitting in their foxholes eating maggoty rice and couldn't take it anymore.
From a diary of a German soldier on the eastern front,” there is so much good living land here for us. Russia is very fertile.”
Few weeks in
“At this rate we will be at Moscow by Christmas”
A few months later at Stalingrad,” 3 men fought in a grain elevator for three days, they knew they will die and fight tooth and nail, if every Russian soldier fights like this we will not be coming home.”
Edit: Also you guys HAVE to watch Brest Fortress. very realistic and historically accurate film of the Russian perspective
that was also in the Stalingrad movie which was excellent
@@UlsterExplorerJungle Stalingrad movie - totally shit. Look "28 панфиловцев" - it's great
That timing of the diary seems off by the time of the war in stalingrad most German troops already knew they were in a vicious struggle after the winter in 42
@@mikedon5205 well, we don't have the intermediates entries
Did this soldier come home ?
My neighbor Frank Correll once told me an apocryphal story. He was a WW2 veteran with the 70th Division. Infantryman. His story went like this after the war he ran into a former Japanese soldier while working for American Airlines in Mexico City during the Olympics. He asked him so who were the best jungle fighters during the war. The Japanese man told him the Australians. Puzzled and being a former infantryman exclaimed the " Australians? " Why not the Americans. He said "When the Americans fight no more jungle".
well thats kinda true, the americans would rather blow up the jungle. Very smart of the americans, Were there any jungles in Australia?
True, Guadalcanal had huge dark tropical forests but by the time the war and American shelling was over, not so much. These days the Solomon Islands is letting foreign companies fell what's left for timber
Semi-similar story: my grand uncle was in the bataan death march and found one of his torturers in a mall in Texas after he got home after the war. Iirc he was arrested after my grand uncle had his turn.
Everybody knows the Aussies were the best jungle fighters. I'm not sure why the yank even asked.
@@jmgonzales7701Australia has rain forests in tropical north queensland. Very hot and humid.
Having the American officers look like regular soldiers and not stand out is actually a great way to not get picked off by snipers literally looking to pick off the officers.
Yeah, Russia still hasn't learned that lesson yet.
@@josephoconnor3668 Now the Russian's are making cell phone calls or posting on social media while in the fight and then getting zeroed in.
@josephoconnor3668 bro 💀
@@josephoconnor3668 they were experts at picking off their own officers rather than the german sniper lmao
Yeah, we learned that snipping British officers during the Revolutionary War.
The Germans used to have a saying, one Panzer tank could knock out 12 Sherman tanks. The only problem was, the Americans had 13.
And 12 other panzers had to be abandoned 10 miles away from the frontlines because they broke down for the 5th time that day
yea and then their panzer ended up getting knocked out by only one sherman and their other panzer friends destroyed by aircraft.
@@ayylmao2190 so like basically every other tank made in mass in the second world war? lmao
@@artybrandt the sherman was far more reliable
@@ayylmao2190 then what? Heavly depends which tank you compare? Then a tiger? Sure but he wasnt though to travel. Over all the shermans were defenitly more reliable then the average but not by much
I spoke to a Wehrmacht soldier some years ago who fought on 3 different fronts of the war, and he had this to say (from my memory and not a direct quote)
"At first I fought the Russians. The thing about the Russians is you could shoot them and they would keep coming. Riddle with bullets they'd get back up and keep running at you. As an enemy you had to respect that, or they'd get you"
"Then I fought against the British. The British fought a lot like we did, and they were very good at it. As an enemy you had to respect that, or they'd get you"
"Then at the end of the war I was fighting against the Americans. Now the thing about that is I never actually saw an American through all the smoke and explosions. But we kept falling back, and you have to respect that."
Epic
That's also what my grandpa told me. He was a teenage soldier during ww2 on the german side and described how they barely got any americans within range. They just mortared and bombed the shit out of them. They had the numbers, the equipment and the supplies... and therefore all the time they needed while the red army advanced more and more towards Berlin.
That's also a reason why the americans had few losses in comparison. They just needed to be patient. And when somebody was injured the chances of survival were very high because of immediate evacuation and treatment. On the german side, on the other hand, many wounded just didn't make it.
My grandfather told me about a particular "encounter" when they hid between ruins while bombs and mortar shells rained down on them. Eventually the american pushed forwards with infantry to see if there are any remaining germans. As soon as the first bullet flown they retreated immediately and the bombardement continued a short time after.
@@justicartiberius8782 Sounds a good way to me.
I always remember a guy worked with who fought first Iraq war he said the British fired the Iraq army ducked, Iraq fired the British would duck, the Americans fire and everybody ducks lol
@@jamespetrie8488 I'm not saying it wasn't a good way. Under those conditions the americans were absolutely able to go with this kind of stategy. Germany was so exhausted and low on almost everything that they couldn't really counter the barrage of bombardement. The german soldiers just tried to take cover as good as possible and repel the americans if they were within range. Problem was: They completely shattered the german morale, which was extremely low at this point anyway, with their strategy. Not only showing that they basically have infinite supplies but also that they are in absolute control of the battlefield.
There were only a few battles which were fought on equal terms against american soldiers. Mostly when artillery and aircraft failed to operate effectively. The battle of Hurtgen Forest is an example for this.
Aircraft and artillery wasn't able to function properly because of the dense forest area, which made infantry the main factor in this battle.
It was just soldiers clashing head to head.
Germany had very much of it's focus on infantry drill and training, which made the german infantry better than the american. And also, of course, because they had quite the battle experience, which is the most valuable asset you can have as a soldier. Then again the experienced soldiers were so thinned out at this point that they had to refill the ranks with boys and old men that barely had any training at all. Just enough to use a weapon.
And still; In the end war is decided by production and logistics. No matter how good your soldiers are, if they don't have the supplies to continue the fight they are doomed to lose.
I remember reading what a German soldier said , after the second world war . If you came under a mass attack it was either the Russians or Chinese . If you got very accurate rifle fire it was the British . But if you got attacked, and it want very quiet and then heavy artillery fire it was the Americans .
China didn't fight the Germans in WWII.
It's actually an old joke, told from an Italian perspective, mostly about how to differentiate the different armies and it was their response to their firing upon them to how you'd learn: British with accurate rifle fire, Germans with machine gun fire, and Americans was just silence as they were calling for all levels of ordinance.
The key level to know that what you've said is apocryphal, is that the Germans never fought the Chinese. They trained the Chinese to fight like them. If anything, that's a Japanese perspective.
tu as simplement lu !!! depuis 1945 nous avons des preuvent que les soldats américains ne sont pas des foudres de guerres ? exemple : Corée , Vietnam ,Cuba , Somalie , Syrie , Koweït , Irak , Afghanistan malgrés le matériel performant les américains on mis le foutoir dans le monde et depuis 80 ans ils perdent toutes les guerres !!! les pires désastres de l'armée américaines sont : au Vietnam , Somalie , en Irak et Afghanistan
huge miss not having the Canadians on the list. they had some divisions that would take no prisoners. plenty of stories of Germans not wanting to fight them at all
Yeh, I've heard something similar.
Not sure that is something to be proud of.
@@CB-fz3li read up what the SS did to canadian POW’s in normandy to find out why…….
@@CB-fz3li it's war
Canadian, Aussies, Anzacs, Indians...we need all
The irony of the US not having uniforms is funny.
The problem was that the US learned in the Indian Wars that if Officers stand out, they die first. Also the US issued 2 uniforms, the brown wool uniform, and the green cotton HBT utilities uniform, which changed color half way through the war.
Tidy uniforms are for garrison duty.
Wouldn’t snipers purposely target officers. So troops wouldn’t even solute them in fear the enemy was watching and figure out who they were.
@@hacksawhackmann That started more during Vietnam, but yes. It did happen.
If the enemy thinks you are disorganised but in reality you aren’t then thats your greatest strength
I always thought us uniforms were much better than the German one everyone seems to simp for. They're simple and efficient, just like most of the stuff america made during the war
It's important to note that writing a book about how great the Allies were was a common move for former nazi generals trying to get a role in NATO.
Who would've thought.
It is very important to use your brains at the end when you have lost the war. The Soviets were are the wrong side of non war history, but won the war, so not as much love for them.
Or trying not to get a role in prison...
and it worked
Yes, but they didn't necessarily need to lie in order to do that. The Americans and the British (as well as other allied nations) were generally quite well organized, well coordinated, well equipped, well led, and highly effective.
I was privileged to know a former British 8th Army veteran who served as a Captain in Churchill's old Cavalry Regt, 4th Hussars. Tom fought throughout the full duration of the desert campaign, and the Italian campaign. He lost two tanks, one to a mine, the second time, an 88mm took his tank out, he was lucky to survive. Tom had a great deal of respect for the German soldiers, whom he regarded as extremely formidable, professional and tough opponents. He held Rommel in very high regard indeed. He once told me, "The only officer who was held in even higher regard than Montgomery by the men of the 8th Army was ROMMEL." He wasn't joking either. When Churchill visited the 8th Army, he visited his old Cavalry unit. Tom was a keen photographer, so he asked the CO if he could photograph Churchill's visit to the Regt's lines. Tom had a large album of photo's- which have never been published, of Churchill visiting his old unit. Tom was able to get within 6 feet of Winston to photograph him, so the pictures were superb. It was a privilege to view the photo's. Tom was away from Britain for a full five years, without once returning on leave- tough times.
Fabulous anecdote.
My grandad was born in 1911.
He served with the Northamptonshire artillery regiment.
He did 4 tours in total
First in North Africa
Then in italy
Then 2 tours in burma.
On his 4th tour he was offered honourable discharge,
he’d already lost the tip of a finger,
And Was suffering from a hunched back from humping shells
But the nail in the coffin was his hearing was all but shot and could no longer hear orders shouted to him unless they were right next to him.
He refused, instead he joined the mess and finished his tour as a cook.
Which according to him was probably worse for his regiment than being shelled by the enemy.
@@cloric1 Thank his bravery and service for the freedoms we enjoy today.
That's because Monty was a poor decision maker and over cautious. He was the most over rated Allied General in World War 2. Rommel had bowel movements more significant than "Monty".
I think these should get published!
Of the eight dead German soldiers in WW2, seven died on the Eastern Front. Of all military personnel in WW2, the Americans lost one in every 25,
the British one in every 24 and
the Russians one in every 4.
Source: Max Hastings - "All Hell Let Loose".
Whatever the Germans thought about the Allies then, everyone knew that the most dangerous was the eastern front.
Russia also had the highest amount of casualties by far. If it weren’t for Lend-Lease Russia likely would have folded.
Max Hastings hasn't got an high opinion of the British Army in WW2.
@@deeacosta2734 Lend Lease didn't really have a tangible effect until 1943, by which time the Germans were on the back foot. It certainly helped but the vast majority of soviet equipment was soviet built
@@deeacosta2734 Lend Lease? Yeah right. The great American story of America believing it's own lies about being the great saviours.
What won the war was the huge sacrifice of 20 odd million Russian dead, despite Russia pleading it's Allies to start a second front to take the pressure off. By the time the Normandy Landings occurred, the Russians had pushed the Nazis back out of the Caucasus, Crimea, Russia proper, most of Ukraine and Belarus. The Germans had lost millions in dead, most of their planes and tanks. The war was effectively already over and it was basically mopping up only.
80% of German troops died in the Russian front.
So, lets look at Lend Lease in more detail, eh?
USSR got 1/3 of the goods through Lend Lease that Britain did, despite having almost four times the population at the start of the war.
So per head of population, that works out of 1/12th the assistance, despite Britain basically being secure in it's sea borders and "Russia" having over a 1000 mile long front engaged in constant warfare.
Of that amount of lend lease goods, over half of it was shipped through Russian Shipping through Japanese controlled seas (there was a neutrality agreement between USSR and Japan at the time) under strict inspection routines that there were no arms, munitions or the like onboard.
Of the goods that the Americans managed to land in Russian territory, the level of respect for them varied greatly. American trucks and trains were sought after as there was insufficient logistical equipment for the level of industrial production that the Russians were gearing up for. Food was obviously important with so much of Russian lands under German occupation, the "Scorched Earth" defence policy, and the majority of Russian men in the army. Or exterminated on the spot by the Germans, put into death camps or forced labour camps.
As for the American tanks, the M3 Medium (Lee) was referred to as "a coffin for seven brothers" and was quickly relegated to training duties. About 2000 early M4 (Shermans) made it to the Russians, and were considered inferior to their domestic tanks, being prone to catching fire easily, due to gasolene fuel, and also sinking into the mud and getting bogged due to high weight with narrow tracks. Both Russia and Germany made wide track vehicles for the Eastern Front to reduce ground pressure to prevent this, because a bogged tank is a sitting target.
It was also slower, yet less well armoured than the T-34, and armament was only on par with the early T-34's. The 2000 later delivered M4 Sherman 76mm addressed some of these issues, but by then the Russians were using far superior versions of their own T-34's, specifically the T-34-85, and the 76mm gun was still massively undergunned compared to the standard German tanks of the time
About half the total "armoured vehicles" that made it to Russia were M3 "White" half tracks and M3 scout cars, including anti aircraft versions. So many versions of "M3" (let alone the M3 "Stuart" the Russians also recieved) caused great confusion, both for the Russians and also the British using them in Africa, which is how they all got their separate names.
Lend Lease had far less impact than Americans think. Any aid was still useful and welcomed, but it certainly didn't have the impact you seem to believe.
@@jakemurray2635 Only 34,000 odd T-34 tanks made by the Russians, and the 29,000 more T-34-85. Plus the 8,000 odd heavy tanks, and the over 20,000 Self Propelled Guns/Tank Destroyers of the SU series.
By comparison, Americans sent about 7,000 tanks to Russia, with about 4000 of those being Shermans, the rest being mostly M3 Stuart and the M3 Lee (mostly not used for combat). Exact records of how many were landed versus lost in shipping are unclear.
Also of note, the British and Canadians sent about 4,000 Valentines, 1,000 Matildas, and 300 Churchill heavy tanks. Not THAT far behind what the Americans sent there.
How dare the Americans "cheat" by using their huge industrial capacity? That's like a German commander complaining that a Chuchill tank's ability to climb hills in Tunisia was 'unsporting". 🤣
Yeah, how dare the Sherman have a transmission that can drive it 40 miles without needing to be repaired 12 times.
If you have a sense for the word „Soldatentum“ , you would understand it
If you have a sense for the word „Soldatentum“ , you would understand it
Even more laughable as Reich was using plenty of resources that wasn't their in the first place.
Hell the war was already over once the US showed up. They were just there to do crowd control.
I think the Germans feared the Soviets the most not so much because of martial prowess, but because of their anger and desire for vengeance above any other nation.
Also maybe because the Soviet Union was just outside Gernany's backyard,while America was an Ocean away.
I don't think the Germans GAF about what the Soviets thought of them, the Germans hated them back just as much. The Germans feared the Soviets because of their never ending cannon fodder and the idea of communism taking over Germany if they lost.
yeah the soviets were just relentless. I think that's where russians shine best in attrition. They arent really the most skilled but their numbers and drive make up for it.
Germans mostly feared Soviet soldiers because of their will to fight.
One story I have read was about how German tank was destroyed (it was a lucky shot that hit ammo) by Soviet T-34... That was burning for 2-3 minutes already. When Panzer III was close enough, the tank slightly moved turret and shoot. According to the German unit commander, that made heavy impact on his soldiers morale.
It's because they were communist slaves forced into suicidal mass charges on a daily basis, imagine fighting armed zombies that ran into your bullets out of fear of their own bullets.
My great-grandfather was part of the 4th Indian Division of the British Indian Army in North Africa. He held Germans in high regard but to him, best commonwealth soldiers were New Zealanders. Born 1906 died 2006.
Man lived an equal 100 Years. Nice. Rip
Your great grandfather was a hero and glad to see he lived a 100 years.
Glad to hear your great grandfather had a long life. The Germans greatest fear was G S Patton once they got to know him and his habits because Patton keep moving forward as long as he had gas in his tanks and didn't give them much time to regroup for a counter attack.
Indians have been fighting for centuries like the British.. badboys
My uncle fought with the 4th Indian Division in North Africa, and had immense respect for them. He fought again with them at Monte Cassino, and volunteered to move up to the front to bring back Indian wounded, during the night after a failed attack. They brought them back whilst under German fire.
Years ago (and I can't remember the source now) I read an account of a German soldier who had fought everywhere from the beginning of the war to the end. He was asked how each of the different nations fought. He said that the British were always very professional and you could always count on them to be a tough adversary, either in defense or on the attack. The French were brave and fought well but were poorly lead. The Russians were totally unpredictable. One day they would surrender 100,000 at a time and the next they would fight fanatically to the death. The Americans? Well, he couldn't say how the Americans fought because in every encounter he had with them, at first contact, he was bombed, strafed and shelled to the point where he couldn't tell what the actual soldiers were doing.
That's the American way of war...... I'll gladly spend $50,000 tax dollars to save a doughboy's life any day.....
Evidently you are unaware of the Kasserine pass or the Salerno landlings or the Ardennes offensive in the winter of 1944.
@@jimdavis8391 Perhaps you should read more closely and understand that I was quoting a German soldier's perception of of his interactions in WWII. FYI, Kasserine wasn't as bad as it could have been because of overwhelming US artillery, Salerno was saved because of the navy hammering everything in sight and air superiority and the northern shoulder of Wacht am Rhine was held up for an entire day by 3 artillery FOs and a corps worth of US arty supporting their fire missions. I think the German was correct.
@@jimdavis8391 bro look at Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan . The American tactic is to bomb the enemy either into submission or weaken them enough to make infantry casualties a minimum. We tend not to send our guys into a wall of bullets and try to overwhelm the enemy with a wall of bodies. They even shelled Normandy for days on end prior to the invasion
@@jimdavis8391 evidently YOU are unaware of El Guettar, Mortain, Omaha Beach, Arracourt, St Vith, Bastogne, Aachen and Remagen. We beat the Germans in ALL OF THOSE! Who cares what the Germans thought!?
To add to that I believe in the Pacific it was something like 17 people per GI at home keeping them supplied when you do the logistics
The Germans suffered a general beat-down from US artillery and airpower. The survivors and prisoners were contemptuous of our reliance on that versus infantry engagement. They viewed it as the "rich man's way of fighting". Well, if you've got it, flaunt it.
Pay to win!!!🤣😂
They should of feared the US infantry more, I read a biography that describes airborne soldiers that mounted decapitated German soldiers heads on the front of their jeeps.
yeah, we Americans prefer to expend fuel and ammo rather than lives.
@@copperrobocop978 That's not true. American paratroopers didn't cut off German heads.
The Germans started the war as "rich men" too. Germany complaining about too much artillery is ironical.
Apologies to those who already watched this video, the original was taken down by YT so we had to make some changes and reupload
TH-cam and the rest of the media strongly dislike educating people on this history, because they're trying to repeat it.
Damn TH-cam! Now they’re trying to censor history! 🤬🤬🤬🤬🤬
Dont worry Bro. At least more people will know instead of Just leaving it Taken down
And they took it down because... for what reason?
Yeah I'd like to know why too! I want to know exactly why TH-cam is being ridiculous once again.
I read a lots of comments, describing how the Americans just bombed the Germans away, instead of actually combating them. I only got the story of my grandpa and that one was quite different. He and his squad were ordered to ambush an American position up the hill. And the Americans had a machine gun. End of story. 3 bullets went through my grandpa (I saw the scars) and he crawled through bushes back to his line, in order to be sent to a hospital. And he managed. Which is why I got to be born in the end ^^
Thank you for your story
С СССР не шутят
Nazi
I can't remember the source, but I remember reading an account from a German POW taken after D-Day and shortly after the Falaise Pocket disaster (for the Germans). As he was being transported back to a POW camp, he remarked not on the tanks, or tactics, or professionalism, or bravery of his American captors, but on the literal mountains of supplies he witnessed stockpiled along the way and the thousands upon thousands of transport trucks carrying food, fuel and ammunition to the front. He said as soon as he saw how well supplied the allies were, specifically the Americans, he knew the war was over.
I read a similar report of a German POW astounded at the amount of uS transport. Their infantry didn't march everywhere, they had trucks. US infantry divisions had more vehicles than German mechanised divisions.
A well fed and rested army is essential. You’re seeing it now with Russia in Ukraine.
It’s likely how we won the US civil war too. Standard daily calorie intake for Union soldier was around 3000…confederate was around 900..
@@nicknoss5341 and as the saying went "there's not a cannon factory in the whole south". You could have twice or three times the numbers but if their morale is shit, they're on one meal a day and their equipment is constantly failing them, you will still lose to a well supplied and equipped militia.
@@spencerquimby4726 Tredegar Iron Works!
Thats the duality of ameirica in 1800 and 1900s a veru industrial society but not the most trained a pretty new army but with all the most gear and most advanced
A Quote from my late Grandfather who fought from North Africa to Germany. “When the Luftwaffe bombed the allies ducked, When the RAF bombed the Germans ducked but when the Yanks bomb everybody ducks”
Nobody does friendly fire like the Americans, they couldn’t hit a cows arse with a banjo
I remember hearing the Germans knew when they were fighting Americans because they made every shot count, a German fell with each American shot. Because Americans already had experience with rifles before the war.
@@mountainguyed67 Sorry but thats rubbish, the US Army used more small arms ammunition than the Commonwealth and French put together..source John Keegan in his book ‘The sharp end’. They sprayed and prayed..like all Armies that have the luxury of endless supplies.
@@MynameisTMP- lol, yeah they spray and pray.
its way off americans were not trained very well in ww2 they were nit remotly prepared f9r any war the bigest suprise of ww2 is america managing ti mobalise as fast as it did every country in ww2 except america had a stand8ng army before the war and was allready mobalises ameeica almost ducked uo dday the canadian and british landings went fine america fucked uo their land8ng it became the bigest boood bath out of dday because ofmit
A friend of my family’s was a gunner in I believe a b17. He always had a difficult time around Christmas thinking of the people he had killed. He was shot down over the Reich and a German soldier made a deal with him. He said I’ll get you through the German line if you can get me through the allies. They were both true to their word. Ernie’s life was saved by the German soldier and he got the German soldier as far as he could before the mp took him into custody. Also unrelated when Ernie was a child he caddied for Babe Ruth and the Iron horse .he had other really cool things I can’t remember.
that needs ro be a movie...
@@brianjones7660 thanks yeah that’s what my mom said. Ernie was married to a lady named Helen . I only know one person alive who knew more about his incredible life. I wonder if the German soldier has family that could expand on the story. Ernie and Helen went to a prayer meeting and my mom met them there
Your story sounds as true as that time me and Mike Tyson played golf on Neptune
Whats the name of that Movie?
@@nokoneffets405 there no movie. If there would be one it should be Gods faithful
When my grandfather was pushing up through Italy with the RAF in 1944, a group of German POWs joked with their British captors "This isn't fair. You have the Americans and we have the Italians".
That was racist!
@@leojanuszewski1019 womp womp it was 1944
@@leojanuszewski1019It doesn't even sound like a race thing, ironic for Germans at that time. The Italians really were not as powerful an ally to the Axis, as the US was to the allies.
@@leojanuszewski1019womp womp
@lolatyoubrah yeah the Germans constantly had to come to Italys aid
A slight mistake in the caption of one of the photographs shown in this video at 6:14
This is actually a French soldier during France's short-lived invasion of Germany in 1939, called the *Saar Offensive*
Yes, France attacked Germany before Germany conquered France.
...and the RAF bombed German cities before the Luftwaffe bombed British ones. This war is full of surprises.
@@neinnein9306 and the French general at the section where the Germans made the Arden breakthrough rejected artillery/tank/plane support telling his superiors that they will steal the glory from his infantry and that his men wouldn't fight as hard since they would think they could leave the job to the tanks/air force, he also went on a 3 day trip at midnight to try and find another general only to then spend a few days walking around the town and shopping all this did occur without him telling where he was going, then later on in Vichy he claimed he supported the free French but did order his men to round up free French officers and shoot them while also sending groups of Algerian Jews to the camp's.
@@gidi3250 sounds pretty based.
@@neinnein9306 the British dropped leaflets
@@gidi3250 sounds like he shouldn't of been an officer lol
Would you do one on what Germany or Japan or Italy thought about each other? Minor or major axis armies
that would be cool
They already did one on Japan
@@ImperialSublimeEmpire It be cool to see what Japan thought of Croatia or Romania and so on or vice versa
@@windex7934 oh I’m a fucking dumbass should have read it more carefully lol
@@windex7934 If the Nazis were horrified of the Ustasha in Croatia, I think its safe to say that the Japanese definitely would be too.
The best description of the Americans during the war was ‘they didn’t solve problems, they overwhelmed them’. The best example was when they entered North Africa, they brought railways plus engines, and something like 6 ton of bras to trade with locals. No other military has or ever had such industrial might.
And they were also heavily defeated by Rommel and his Africa corp, an absolute push over at first. The American troops weren't up to scratch at all. They learnt their lessons and took their knocks well though.
@@jasonbutler7054 The America were defeated at Kasserine Pass. But the American soldier was a quick learner and kicked the Krauts ass all the way back to Germany you twit. The Germans lost the war and America did it to them.
because they didnt have any fear of production places being bombed or whatsoever
“they didn’t solve problems, they overwhelmed them.” You just got the Soviets mixed up with Americans.😂
@@nutterbuttergutter
Many Soviet top generals is really good actually from organizational skill, strategy, innovation,etc
Thank you for restoring the respect due to French soldiers !
Hitler respected French soldiers which he encountered in WWI.
My Father ( RIP 1997) 🙏🏻was in the British Eighth Army from 1939 to 1946. Duration of WW2 plus 6 months. He didn't speak to often about his time in North Africa and Italy. Except to say the German army were lead by excellent officers and the enlisted men were very well trained. The German tanks Panzer and Tigers were hard to knock out. Unless one got behind or hit one in the side. Even though he was at war vs the Axis forces my Father respected the German Africa Corps. They had difficulty with supply lines and ultimately that proved costly. This documentary seems very accurate in it's depiction of how the Germans felt about the Allied forces fighting against them. 💪🏼🙏🏻✨
Look up George Dring of the Sherwood Ranger Yeomanry. In a Sherman, his kill count against those German tanks was amazing.
@@theanderblast thank you i will peruse the information you have given me. On George Dring on his battle field accomplishments in a Sherman Tank. 💪🏼🙏🏻✨
@@theanderblast George Dring Correct only a 22 sec clip on youtube . Where else would his info be please? 💪🏼🙏🏻✨
Yeah, it's as my father always says: "Respect the person, not the position or respect the position, not the person, but if they're forcing other people to do respectable things, don't respect them."
My grandfather was also in the 8th and fought in NA. After the war he was sent to guard Italian POWs in a camp in Scotland. It was here where he learned that his former enemy was in fact no different from him and everyone just wanted to go home and get on with their lives. Was wondering if that was the deal for all 8th army soldiers before demobilization, guarding POWs in Scotland and returning home in 1946.
My grandfather on my mother's side was a German lieutenant (oberleutnant) and fought the Canadians in Normandy. He said that they were brave, cunning and above all else, ruthless.He told me that towards the end of the Normandy campaign the Canadians were treating all German prisoners if they were SS. My grandfather was finally captured in Belgium after his unit ran out of ammunition. My grandfather put it to a vote as to what to do next and the vast majority voted to surrender.
Yeah your grandfather was very lucky that the Canadians broke "tradition" when captured, the Canadians were notorious for not taking any prisoners.
God bless your grandfather.
my gradfather was an german officer he survived the war but died after the war in soviets prison camp
MY UNCLE WAS AT OMAHA AND THE BULGE. HE SAID THERE WAS A REASON FOR THE CANNUCKS TO HATE THE SS; THEY GOT THEIR ASSES KICKED.
I don’t know why people think of the Canadians as a very gentle nation. I guess they don’t watch hockey. I could not imagine fighting an army full of Terry O’Reiley’s or Broad St. Bullies. As an American, I’m glad they’re on our side, except during the Winter Olympics.
I remember hearing a story of A former German soldier he said one day he was driving an officer but suddenly the car broke down. They then went to a near by prison camp holding American POWs to look for a mechanic. When they asked the prisoners if they knew how to fix a car over half the camp stepped forward. That’s when the driver then knew that the war was lost. He said that if a they were fighting a country where cars were this common they were going to get out industrialized and out performed in terms of machines and capacity
What about the Canadians?
@@josephhorwood4743 wdym
@@josephhorwood4743 Most of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the US border.
@@craiga2002 I’m not talking about U.S. border the prison camp was in Europe specifically Italy thats where the German driver was stationed
You win the comment section
I remember hearing a story where a guys relative was a German soldier during ww2 and his officers told him that when fighting the Americans you must keep your head on a swivel and must think of the least probable way they'll attack them, because that will be the way they attack them . I also heard another one that an Italian said that the American army didn't fight like any other European country, other army's were slow and disciplined whilst the Americans were unpredictable but prone to ingenuity from General to Grunt. There was a quote saying "War is chaos and the American army practices on daily basis."
That was on Reddit
It's just one soldier's opinion.
@@johnmichaelson9173 Just as yours in one person's opinion.
Please let's not forget that the French outnumbered 20 to one fought ferociously and selflessly to hold back the Germans at Dunkirk to allow the brits and French to get on the boats to be evacuated.
"Filer à l'anglaise" has never been more true
You must be British. 😉 Americans wouldn't know that fact.
Well.. they also don't know where to place Africa on a map, but that's a story for another day.
Not just french though right? Did british, belgian and commonwealth units not also remain with the french rearguard?
@@colonelturmeric558
Yes, my British great uncle John was captured holding the line at Dunkirk along with thousands of other British soldiers. He spent the rest of the war as a POW.
@@goofygrandlouis6296who won the American Revolutionary War? Oh yeah
"Officers do not stand out in apperance unlike in any other European army"
America was ahead of its time in this, officers should wear combat uniform that will not mark them for enemy
soviets also had their commanders & captains use helmets & same coats on field
In the US Revolution the British and Hessen groups complained that the US snipers were targeting the officers. Clearly the US Army understood the lessons they were teaching way back then.
@@davidlewis5929 The revolutionaries did that knowing their soldiers would become confused if they didn't have officers telling them what to do.
Generals Grant, Sherman and Sheridan took that to an extreme by dressing like common wagon drovers working under contract for the Union Army. That allowed them to sit at the front lines discussing the terrain and tactics while passing a jug around.
Fun fact: Britain has historically had the highest number of aristocrats dead in war because they stand up straight to make their soldiers feel brave, like a peacock. The soldiers thought it was stupid, but inspiring nonetheless
I guess that explains the whole stiff upper lip Britishness stuff
USA might have been less disciplined and such but it also led to them being very creative and thinking on their feet instead of having to follow set procedures that might not be as effective.
Also loved this thing where the different leaders claimed that America goes against all procedures and makes them very hard to predict. But then it had the Americans logic of “if we have no idea what we’re doing, how will the enemy”.
Lastly I remember a thing where a German knew the war was lost after they killed an American and found him to be a big guy and lots of food on him, realizing the amount of food and supplies a standard American had while they were starving
A long standing tactic of Americans is what's known as maneuver warfare, and the best generals are those who can master it. If the enemy doesn't know where you're going, they can't counter you effectively. If they do manage to guess your objective, you can change it without sacrificing too much momentum.
Look at Sherman's Georgia and Carolinas campaigns. The Confederates weren't able to stop him because they didn't know where he was going until it was too late to stop him.
A criticism I heard about the Americans was that they couldn't think on their feet and weren't creative. They relied too much on their technology and fire power and without it they were very meek and mild. And another thing was they took credit for everything and run down the soldiers of other nations . There were incidents in countries hosting GIs were Americans showed a complete lack of respect for the locals. Incidents like the Battle of Brisbane and the Battle of Bamber Bridge etc.
@@jasonallen6081 Read half way through and was about to bring up what they did in Australia. They haven't changed much.
@@jasonallen6081 cope.
I remember a story in which during the Battle of the Bulge, if memory serves me right, the Americans captured a German soldier. The Americans asked the German on what he thinks of Germany's various enemies. The German said that the French could be easily beat off with artillery. The Soviets the same. The British when they announced they would attack they would also announce where they would attack. So the Germans always knew where they would attack and easily beat them off. When one of the Americans asked the German soldier what he thought of the Americans the German soldier replied: "oh you Americans are different." "You say you will attack here, but you attack somewhere else." "when you announce the time you will attack, you attack at a different time." "You Americans are like us, you don't know what's going on!"
Are sure that this German wasn't catering to the Americans' ego to ensure good treatment.? What is he going to say to American captors? That American troops were shit?
@@PeterWestinghouse Let's look at this another way. The German soldier, the enemy, is telling his captors that they are similar to his opponents. How would you feel if you were told by your opponent that you are the same as them? Doesn't sound good either now does it? And it sounds like to me you need to lighten up.
OP: _"The German said that the French can be easily beat off with artillery"_
Yeah... like in Verdun in 1916...
@@krips22 You're in the wrong war.
@@Taffer-bx7uc Taffer 1000: _"You're in the wrong war"_
a/ It could sound like a general statement about diverse people at war (their typical behavior in specific situations - their weaknesses).
b/ If the French could withstand the most immense hail of steel the world had ever seen so far in ww1, why couldn't they endure any at all 20 yrs later?!... weird to snipe at them about that specific situation.
c/ Maybe the most important point: The quick French defeat in 1940 was above all strategical (surprise attack through the Ardennes) + the new blitzkrieg strategy that noone could efficiently counter back then - and it was particularly linked with panzer divisions and had not much to do with artilery... weird comment by this guy.
My old Friend I worked with in Canada served in the German army in WW2 I asked how the war ended for him and he told he had been in the battle of the bulge. He was in a tank and they ran out of fuel with none to get so they had to surrender. I worked with many veterans of the war that served in in different militaries which happens when you live in Canada a immigrant country. My Father went ashore at Juno beach with Canadian Army Fort Garry Horse Armored reconnaissance. He liberate France ,Belgium, Holland into Germany. He never had any bad things to say about the German Army or the German people. All the people who were Veterans of different countries on both sides that I worked with had no grudges visible and no arguments between them.Tthey were all glad the War was over.
Best tankers ever the Canadians ....
Yep, despite it whe the Brits claim, it was Sydney “Rad” Radley-Walters of A Sqn, Sherbrooke Fusiliers, 2nd Armoured Brigade, that ended the “Black Baron” Michael Whittmann’s killing spree in his Tiger. Canadian’s had never been shy to fight.
I once worked with a German that was a POW at a camp south of Chicago and returned to the village where it was located after the war. He saw a good amount of action yet didn't care to discuss his experience fighting different armies but said the American GI was blessed with having the best field rations and real handy small Coleman stove to heat up food, water and sleeping areas.
They certainly had great kit.
Wait where was the camp south of Chicago, I live south of Chicago
@@edscmidt5193 Believe it was the Homewood area. There werr two parks there: Sweetwoods North & Sweetwoods South. One had a Girl Scout camp nearby that was a former German POW camp that wasn't torn down after the war. The camp was using their former wood barracks as housing, mess halls and educational classrooms. I think those buildings were painted a light green.
That region from south of Chicago and across NW Indiana into SE Michigan was settled by German and Dutch farmers that formed small communities so those POW's were put to work on their farms and orchards. My coworker said they expected a harsh existence behind barb wire so were surprised to have comfortable accommodations, plenty to eat and being taken out to work for people that spoke German and provided buckets of homemade beer during lunch with their guards approval (one benefit for good behavior). Him and several others returned around 1950 to settle down in Sauk Village while others went to South Holland. I last talked with him in 1977 before moving to Texas.
Americans really did eat the best. Three solid meals a day, all with meat, and even occasionally things like ice cream.
@@LeoMidori The GI daily rations provided 6,000 calories. The Germans provided 5,000. I don't remember how many calories the other countries soldiers consumed each day.
The GI's favorite ration meal was breakfast since it came with a packet or two of instant coffee. Lunch and dinner came with some sort of instant fruit drink nobody liked. Probably was due to being acidic so reacted with their aluminum cups.
On the Eastern Front, it was a automatic death sentence for any Wehrmacht soldier who was captured in an SS uniform. The Red Army soldiers just summarily executed them. On the odd occasion a prisoner was needed for interrogation, an SS soldiers could expect to be executed later, or at least “shot while trying to escape”.
Same for regular Wermacht soldiers, if they has bad luck, and wss captured by advancing Soviet tanks or mechanised corps or divisions. For them it was easier to shot POW's, than bother to form column of POW's and send guards with them.
@@PyromaN93 : But what about the parade of Wehrmacht pow’s through Moscow in 1944. Grandma used to tell stories about watching SS officers being publicly hanged and foaling themselves. She used to feel a little guilty about enjoying the spectacle, but it would be only momentarily until she remembered family lost during the war. Dad and uncles used to tell stories about throwing stones at German pows being transported to Siberia, or engaged in post-war reconstruction.
The Russians committed more atrocities than Germany. The Russians killed every man 16yo and older regardless of side
A good friend of mine grandfather was in a Wehrmacht unit. He was only one kept alive since he cut hair for the Soviets.
@@PyromaN93 sometimes but many hundreds of thousands of Wehrmacht soldiers returned to Germany in the 1950s. They were kept for 6-10 years in labour camps. Clearly they didn't shoot all of them!
“The American soldier cannot attack without artillery and air support”
- a German soldier about to get turned into pink mist by artillery and air support
That just sounds like someone who has a brain
The only people who would willingly fight without artillery or air support are people who are desperate
@@whenyoupulloutyourdickands4023 he didnt say he wouldnt, he said that the americans couldnt without it
I saw a television documentary some years back on the Battle of Monte Casino. The German soldiers being interviewed were all very matter of fact and stereotypically stern. But one of them actually teared up and got emotional when he started talking about the Poles - and how bravely they fought in that battle.
Teared up??? hahaha. you must have watched a skit/parody. no real man would cry like a little girl
Everyone’s a tough guy till they see war.
Again, that was a battle where the Americans simply bombed the Germans into the Stone Age. I studied the Monte Casino campaign in detail because I once spent a year living in a Benedictine abbey of the American Casinese Congregation. The abbey was completely rebuilt after the war.
@@marcmeinzer8859 It was heavily bombed - and shelled - no doubt, but it was precisely the resulting rubble that gave the Germans a tremendous amount of cover to hold out.
Monte Cassino was not "simply" a bombing campaign. Between January 17, 1944 and May 18, 1944 Monte Cassino and the Gustav defenses were attacked on four occasions by Allied troops. On May 16th, soldiers from the Polish II Corps launched one of the final assaults on the German defensive position as part of a twenty-division assault along a twenty-mile front. On May 18th a Polish flag, followed by a British flag, were raised over the ruins of the abbey.
I too have been to the rebuilt abbey.
@@ScottA2345 I’ve only seen the abbey dimly in the distance while in Gaeta with the merchant marine. The abbey I tried living in was St. Andrew’s Abbey in Cleveland, Ohio, which is also Benedictine. There are only a token number of monks at the rebuilt Monte Casino the location where Saint Benedict founded the order in the sixth century with just a handful of monks such as Saint Damian, St. Cosmas and Saint Dismas.
Nothing but Respect for the World War II Generations of men and women.
A lot of them survived through 2 World Wars, the spread of deadly viruses, the Great Depression, and everything that comes with each situation... yet you rarely heard a complaint from any of them about it. The greatest people we have ever known. There will never be a population on Earth that will ever come close, I'm sure of this
I tend to agree with you. My parents were married in Australia during the depression, I was born in 1940 at the beginning of the war.
My father was a very young teenager in England during the 1st war. I remember him telling me about going down to the railway station in Birmingham with his mother late at night to meet the train bringing injured soldiers back to their home areas. They wanted to see if my father's older brother was among the injured.
My father said he would never forget the sound of men crying, screaming and moaning in pain when the train pulled into the station.
He said the trains came late at night so the population were not likely to see the dreadful injuries of some of the men.
I might accept your assessment if you're referring to the allies. Fuck fascists.
The British troops were made up of CommonWealth nations such as Canadians, Australians, East Indians, etc… don’t forget about them
@Art Guy: yah most historians forget about the “ minor” allied commonwealth countries. Yet, without their contribution, the war would have taken longer.
Canadian pilots are never mentioned as, Canada’s airforce was under the RAF. No mention of the hundreds of Pilots that were trained in Canada, or the thousands of aircraft built in Canada.
Also, the thousands of merchant Marines that made sure the convoys got to Britain safely.
Over 10% of Canada’s 11 million population of the time, served in WW2, over 65% were volunteers.
Stay safe, stay sane, stay Strong Ukraine 🇺🇦
@@sirdavidoftor3413 that's nonsense that canadian pilots are forgotten. Because they dont feature so much in youtube videos? My hometown is a small town in yorkshire (england) that has an amazing cemetery and a war memorial. both are full mainly of canadian bomber crews names and the gravestones are kept in pristine condition and get ceremonies every year.
i just alabel then as brits tbh. idk or idc if it offends people. they were all in the British empire.
@@Ukraineaissance2014 : historians forget to mention them, not the British people! Though I will say not all. Dr. Mark Felton and a few other British TH-camrs do go into all combatants.
A North American person doing research in 20 or so years, on this topic would not know how you honour Commonwealth graves.
TH-cam is used today as a quick research tool.
I have watched many American and British made docs on WW2 and many clump the commonwealth countries in with “ British forces”.
Very few docs fail to recognize the contribution of the commonwealth countries.
Someone learning about WW2 would just take it as fact that it was just British and American forces.
Do you know who provided navel support for operation Torch in North Africa?
Canadian, Australian, and Dutch navies !
If you watch documentaries on operation Torch, very few mentions that fact. Most people assume that it was British and American forces , since the documentaries never mentions who.
I deeply respect the British people for honouring our war dead. Just as I honour all vets on Remembrance Day and Memorial Day ( USA).
Stay safe, stay sane, stay Strong Ukraine 🇺🇦
You are completely right. And I'm sorry that I often miss them out.
As a Scotsman, seeing the United Kingdom being referred to as “England” is quite frustrating. The United Kingdom is not only England and it is not only Anglo Saxon. it includes Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland which are Celtic nations.
Surely you don't support scottish independence then?
@@JasperB12 no, I’m a British patriot. That’s a reason why people support independence however because they don’t feel recognised.
@@alexmcadam1126 you are definitely recognised by the English. Except when you beat us at football! Every Scot I have met in England has been great company and we try to be as courteous as possible (aside from the odd jibe). Also, after having heard so many stories about English people in Scotland I was amazed at how welcoming and friendly everyone was when I spent time in and around Glasgow.
@Alex McAdam good to see British patriotism isn't dead yet.
It is generally only Americans who refer to England rather than the UK. Put this down to general ignorance. I served with many other members of the UK for nearly 30 years and am proud of all of them Be it Scottish, Welsh or Irish from both NI and Eire. However I am very much afraid that history shows that the majority of Scots and Welsh have only a small Celtic heritage after the Anglo Saxons, Vikings and Irish decended upon their countries after the Romans left. The Scotti are an Irish tribe who's kingdom of Dal Riada absorbed the Pictish Kingdom and the majority of the lowlands were settled by Anglo Saxons. Wales has a similar history up until the industrial revolution when hundreds and thousands of English people moved there to work in the mines and steelworks thereby reducing the percentage of Celtic even further. Even parts of England were affected by Viking and Irish invasions and settlement. The vast majority in the North East are of Viking extraction and in the North West and West Wales the Irish and Viking population was huge. This does not decry Celtic influence or culture which is endemic to the whole of the British Ilse and it is this admixture of Celtic, Saxon, Irish ,Viking and a few other ethnic groups that make up the British population that makes us great. One without the other would not have allowed us to become a great nation.
Thank you for reading and please remember we are so mixed together that we are all British.
The Sherman was always intended to support infantry. Not seek out and go head to head with German armour. The Sherman's 75mm gun was well suited against enemy infantry and light vehicles, which was its typical encounters. And, isn't it better to build massive amounts of equipment to support the infantryman, than digging massive numbers of graves?
And funnily enough, when the 76 was used crews actually said they preferred having a 75 because it was better to fire HE with and they faced infantry more than tanks
The firefly fixed that
That's what most tanks are for.
From what I’ve heard, this is fairly accurate of the opinions at the time. They didn’t really respect the Russians (Soviets), just feared them for their brutality. They thought the Brits were competent, but overly cautious. The French kind of “meh” in general. Americans just had endless firepower and men to use, but were respectable as individuals, even if a bit sloppy as units.
Watched a few documentaries on this topic and that seems to be roughly the German perspective… very roughly.
From what I’ve read and has been told to me, the Brits were cautious to the point of timidity. Inflict a few casualties on them and they stop advancing.
One of my mentors, a German officer who’d fought all the above allied forces (he was in intelligence), said Russians were brutal pigs, Ukrainians - if you shot their commissars and officers- were good fighters who’d surrender rather than die for Stalin (who’d inflicted the Holomor/Ukrainian Holocaust on them).
The French were “okay” fighters. Italians were a joke, unless they ambushed you.
Americans had overwhelming artillery and controlled the air. That said, the M4 Sherman was a death trap for those who were in it. Brave, but doomed. Overall, the Germans were cautious when taking on Yanks. They could surrender after a small firefight, run away, or fight to the death. One could never predict how an American unit would respond, unless they were paratroopers. Then, they knew they were up against elite troops.
I was born into a military intelligence family, and enjoyed mentors of German, Polish, and of course American birth.
Because obviously you have heard multiples opinions from ppl from this era
@Nicolas I specifically said I’d seen documentaries on the topic, not that I’d heard German accounts of their opinions in person. Most people who even could have served in that war are dead, or approaching 100.
I am a veteran though, I have talked to WW2 vets at my VFW. It’s mostly old men just trying to make friends and have companions that at least understand the concept of war (even if they were very different wars). You glean a certain amount through subtle clues in what the older vets say, even if they don’t say it directly.
I have never personally spoken to a German veteran from WW2, probably never will, and I never said I did.
@@nwj03a Yea I don't care much who you are. 100 000 french soldiers died before the defeat, they fought like any other soldier would have despite everything. And here you are, noble internet random, with your "from what I have heard the french were meh soldiers".
@Nicolas That implies Americans care about the French. I’m being polite, nobody respects, fears, or cares about you… sorry, not sorry. You’d be like 10th on global care level, tops.
I believe that that the Russians were the most feared. The atrocities committed by the Germans in Russia left no doubt in anyone’s mind that payback was on its way. When you have two armies facing each other and no Quarter is given - that get your attention.
Yup
Bullshit.
@@BasementEngineer how so?
The russian soldiers didn't need a motivation like "payback" to commit their crimes. They were already as brutal to the polish people as they were to the german soldiers.
@@leonkleber5009 The Soviets were brutal to their own people, murdering 20+ million of them before the war.
My neighbor here in the Philippines was the son of a Waffen SS Officer. His father wrote a book and he read me a translation when I was 16. Years later I came back and read the entire thing. His father was born in a Pro-Nazi Dutch family and when Germany invaded the Netherlands he joined the SS when he was given the opportunity. He started out as Infantry in an Infantry Battalion (forgot the name) and fought during Barbarossa. One time when his position was to be replaced by some Italians for them to rest, 10 minutes later those same Italians fled thinking there was a large Soviet force about to attack them. Turns out it was just some scouting party and from then on he hated the Italians saying "They paraded like they were Julius Caesar" in mockery. My neighbor told me he never vistied Italy with his father because of that.
After that he got wounded, and then chose to train as a Tank Crewman during recovery. He even got awarded a medal by Steiner himself. If I remember correctly, he was a Radio Operator in the SS Division Wiking. Interestingly, his Panther Tank, 611, was one of the last Panthers in service before it got destroyed and he ended up operating a captured T34. One time when they were on patrol they encountered an IS-2 "driving across the snowfields below' (might be paraphrasing here). They were scared of the IS-2, but had little respect for the T34s and their crew since everytime they engaged them, they would always turn to their sides and expose their weak side armor. He never fought in Berlin. He jumped down a river and let himself be captured by Americans rather than face the Soviets.
His son is still alive and is around 60 years old now I believe. I actually forgot to go and finish his book when I was 16 and only remembered about it when I got put in the same class as his daughter lmfao. For those interested, the name of the book is Wiking: A Dutch SS-er on the Eastern front
It's a shame that this bastard survived.
@@mnemonicpie actually the guy turned out to be a really good guy. Granted he may have fought for the wrong side, but his family are really good people. Though the same can't be said for his wife. Apparently, she's nearing a hundred years old and is really racist to the point that her son and granddaughter are hoping she'd pass on already. Contrary to popular belief, not all SS are fanatics.
@@RenMagnum4057 ohh he's a nice SS guy?😂 can you tell me where I can find him in the Philippines?
Easy to understand, why he did not surrender to Russians. As a SS officer, too little chances not to be shot at once. For comments on "nice guy, not fanatic" get some reading on Plan Ost, Hunger Plan, Commissar Order and ways of SS actions implied those in the USSR. SS members were doomed to die as soon as they were prisoners.
The Dutch split right down the middle, widely regarded as the best and most ruthless resistance movement in Europe but per capita provided the most foreign volunteers to the SS. It is very dangerous to let society polarise politically.😱
Despite the myths sorrounding Sherman tanks, they were for the most part on par with German vehicles. The majority of tank battles were between Shermans and panzer 3/4s of which the Sherman was a match. Even when fighting panthers and tigers, a Sherman with the long barreled 76mm gun could penetrate the frontal armor. The myth that it took several Shermans to take on a panther/tiger came from the fact that American tanks moved in units of at least 5 and since the Germans were fighting a defensive war, it was easier to ambush Americans effectively.
Another factor was how allies and the Germans tally casualties during the war, which makes armchair historians who only look at numbers think casualties were in favor of the Germans.
When an American tank is damage beyond what field repairs can perform to make it combat-ready (for example, losing too much armor in combat), the tank is written as a loss for the unit so the unit gets a replacement quickly to keep at full strength while the damaged tank it sent to a repair depot for repair. That also includes tanks that need only two weeks of repair at a repair depot before it was sent back to their unit.
When a Geremam tank is damaged but still considered repairable or salvageable, it is still reported as part of the unit and not a loss. That includes tanks that are later scrapped for they were damaged beyond comically repairable (aka, the cost of remaining and replacing parts costs more than making a new tank outside a few recycled parts). For example, I remember reading how an SS Tank Unit in the Battle of Berlin had a reported 48 tanks as part of the unit but only had 12 "active" tanks in service. That is probably why armored casualties ballooned at the end of the war since they reported a unit loss by the number of armored vehicles it has on paper than its actual numbers. Also, the high casualties were possibly part of the reason why the myth the T-34 was a good tank came to be (it was an engineering nightmare that combat was inadequate compared to other medium tanks).
My father was in Grenadier Guards 1939 to 1946. In 1944 he was in Guards Armoured Div which landed in Normandy late June. He said the German 88mm gun was the weapon of the war. Tiger tanks with the 88mm could not be knocked out frontally. Later the Sherman Firefly and other tanks with more powerful guns could.
Very late comment I know… But the 76 Sherman stood no chance of penetrating the hull of the Panther from the front. Even Pershing’s would have trouble doing so. However, the turret is easily penetrated by the 75 from a normal Sherman at a distance of 100m or 800 meters from a Sherman 76.
@@aztkshorty9138 The Pershing's 90 mm was kind of a piece of crap. The HV 76 mm was a really good gun.
The real myth is the Americans took out many Tigers at all in North West Europe they managed 3 one of which was being loaded on a rail car at the time. There has been lots of rividsionist claims about the Sherman, usually ignoring the men who had use them to fight the Germans. The 76 were difiately an improvement but were not common until the very end of the war, it certainly was not avaiable in Normandy but then the Americans never faced Tigers in Normandy, they were deployed against the British and Canadians.. Their gun was not remotely equal to the German guns. I'll go with my father's opinion who drove Shermans from the Liri valley up though Italy and then Belgium and Holland. Generally he liked the Sherman but did not regard it even close to most tanks they faced and would always prefer a 17lb Sherman to be in his troop.
#1 Ranked Allied Army has to be Luxembourg without a doubt
YES
Andorra, They declared war on Germany in 1914 and didn’t sign a peace treaty with them until 1945.
It wasn’t because they remained belligerent to Germany, just that everyone forgot to invit them to the peace talks LoL
Nobody messes with Luxembourg.
Nobody.
When I was in my youth, back in the early 80’s, I once met a balding old German man working behind the counter at a gas station in Cullman, Alabama. He was old enough to have been a soldier and I was just bold enough to ask him if he fought in WWII. To my shock, he said that he had and that he’d been a Stuka pilot.
After talking a little longer, I asked him what he thought of the Americans during WWII.
“I couldn’t see anyone well from the air,” he said, “but I heard others who had come in contact with the American soldiers. They fought as hard as anyone else, from what I heard. We lost and I came here because the GI’s in camp treated us kindly and I saw they had more wealth than anyone else we faced on both fronts. I came here and now I own my own gas station, a home and anything else I could want or need. I love America.”
By the way, I don’t think fear is a good marker for respect as a soldier. The Japanese were terrified of Americans because they were told they’ll be tortured and eaten by them, not our military prowess. They were shocked when most Americans in Japan treated them with respect after the war. The Germans were afraid of the Commies because of the revenge they expected to face, not because of their military prowess.
A commonly referenced quote is “The reason the American Army does so well in wartime, is that war is chaos, and the American Army practices it on a daily basis." This is believed to have been said by a German General following World War II. It is likely that the General meant the statement as an insult, not as a compliment.
It would not be the first time a European insulted us and we took it as a compliment.
I'm glad there is a good take on the American Army. Their biggest advantage was the flexibility of the battalions and internal squadrons. A squadron leader could grab his team of 10-15 and attack an enemy position in the most outrageous way. Americans lost many soldiers to recklessness but this is why the broke through the in the Ardeness.
British and Russians mobilised entire divisions to perform an offensive which was easier to scout and prepare for.
The majority of the german army was on the eastern front. Only 20% was stationed in France during Overlord, with the vast majority in the north were the shoring was expect. Do not compare what is not comparable.
An amphibious assault of that size is still a commandable feat, but the Normandy beaches were nearly deserted, and although the victory was indeed vastly tactical and achieved through intel gathering from BOTH the UK and US, the USSR did the heavy lifting on the eastern front, and had to work its way with brute force given the numbers and the size of the frontline
Yeah the real fight for the Americans was in the Pacific. Also the Nazis weren’t on the offensive in the west rather the East so of course they would have more troops in the East trying to knock the soviets out as quickly as they could.
I'm a Brit and our foe of the ages was the French; to this day we take the piss out of the Froggies lol.
However, as much as this hurts, it pisses me off when Americans call the French derogatory names such as, Surrender monkeys". The French are a fine fighting nation with a fantastic military history. If it wasn't for the French the USA would of struggled to gain independence from us Brits. So it's nice to see the Germans acknowledged just how good they were/are.....Froggy barstewards:-)
As a French, I burst out laughing to your comment. It's a good representation of our love-hate relationship, you rosebeef. And no need to be pissed for the Americans behavior, every cultured human being know that what they say is not true, so the French generally just ignore. PS: In France, the feeling of "hate" for the Brits almost don't exist anymore, except in history class. If you ask a French person what is their opinion on the UK, you'll find out that we actually love your culture :) (sorry for my crappy English 😅)
Gross get a room🤮.. anyway … as an American and former soldier this is the first I’ve ever heard “ surrender monkey” lol! Funny.. .. I did meet a French dude in DC once outside of a night club.. he ran into the parking garage and I stopped him to see what was wrong.. he was crying and had a bloody nose screaming “ I don’t understand why are y’all so brutal “ lol I have him a smoke and drove him to his hotel, he started crying again and tried to give me money for “ being his friend “ lmao. I didn’t expect of course.. I felt bad for him and wanted to help.. A personal anecdote admittedly but the encounter did shape my perception of the French as delicate ppl
There is zero beef between Britain and France anymore. Both world wars solidified us as very close allies
American here. I disagree we do make jokes about all Europeans in general especially France and England. However you guys are still our best friends.
France has the best military record of all current nations. Britian is close behind with the next best.
One German soldier looked at a captured American position and found Xmas cake. He said he realised the war was hopeless at that point.
Let’s be honest the US soldiers were never defending their own country and fighting on another continent. If we were ever defending our own borders or country the world would see a completely different military. My dad was wounded twice in Germany when he truly wanted to fight the Japanese, since they had attacked us.
Hitler declared war on the US, that's why the US fought in Europe it wasn't American initiative or heroism.
Uh German U Boats were stinking American ships regularly and declared war on us. We let them get away with it for far to long.
This channel is criminally underrated. Keep up the good work!
"The reason the American Army does so well in war is because war is chaos and the American Army practices chaos on a daily basis." Almost certainly apocryphal, but still probably not far off. sm
a backhanded compliment issued as an excuse by the losing side :)
It would be really interesting to see a video on the Japanese perceptive of the Allies in WWII.
He does
Well I don't think we need to know what they thought of the Chinese. Nanking painted a VERY clear picture.
th-cam.com/video/y30JoAkJm_Y/w-d-xo.html
He already did
They thought we were fat, stupid and arrogant
Infact we were strong, smart and arrogant
They were thin, stupid and arrogant
Battle of the Bataan was all they needed to know about the Allies
Conclusion : you have brave soldiers in every country ; success depends on motivation, command and strategy
Success depends on having stuff to fight with
You can have the bravest, best trained soldiers in the world. Without logistics and supplies, they're eventually doomed. Pretty much the story of the Germans in WW1 and WW2. Did great initially, but eventually found themselves over stretched and under supplied.
While there are a lot of people quick to remind everyone that 'British' doesn't just mean the British (e.g. English, Scottish, Welsh, Northern Irish etc) it also seems that some would take that so far as to completely swindle the British natives themselves out of any credit for being a legitimately respected fighting force _without_ the Empire/Commonwealth forces. It can go completely the other way where it seems as though the British were nothing without Canadians and Australians etc, which is totally not true.
The vast majority of the British Imperial forces were the 4-4.5 million UK born British soldiers (not including 960,000-1,000,000 British personnel in the Royal Navy, RFA and RNFAA or any of the British personnel in the RAF; which, yes was also contributed to by many international pilots e.g. during the Battle of Britain) While it is correct not to forget or underestimate the impact of these contributing peoples, it is also important not to overestimate them, either, something which often seems to be forgotten in favour of portraying the British from the UK as supposedly 'stealing credit' when really it was always a combined effort and anyone with a brain knew it.
This also says nothing about the vast impact of British Intelligence from MI5 and MI6 during WWII, or the great developments into Special Forces and special operatives (e.g. SBS, SAS, SOE) that were established in WWII. Credit where it is due but that doesn't mean taking it away from anyone either.
Northern Ireland is a part of the UK but is very definitely not British. There have been entire wars faught solely over that. An important distinction.
@@brendanm6921 I thought it best to include them under the category of 'UK' because it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland', not just 'Great Britain'. It is reasonable to include them in the list of English, Scottish, Welsh etc. Because I didn't want to just put 'Irish', I wanted to make the distinction between 'Irish' and 'Northern Irish', more because it would be more likely someone would complain if I had not. Calm down.
@@brendanm6921 strange, last time i checked it was still british.
@@lefoix4629 No it isn't. Britain is England, Scotland and Wales. The UK, the British isles and Britain aren't the same things. Trust me, I'm a Brit. I think I know. There are some parts of Northern Ireland where you could get a very hostile response for calling them British. In the past, many people have even died because of it.
@@brendanm6921 "If you live in Northern Ireland, you will need to visit the Regional Passport Office in Belfast if you need a British passport urgently."
They are British.
Same way the people from the Falklands are British.
That story about the German army and US logistics fits. I remember hearing that a persistent belief in the Wehrm@cht after Normandy was that every US GI got issued a jeep after graduating boot camp.
why censor wehrmacht
@@gamerdrache6076 never know what Google will have a fit over.
Well that's a bit of a false dilemma. No private jeeps, sure, but afaik the US army was close to fully motorized. Meaning they were transported by motorized vehicles over larger distances, rather than on foot.
The Wehrmacht was far less mechanized. German logistics relied heavily on trains. The reason was that 1) trains are very efficient at carrying large loads over large distances and 2) trains run on coal, which Germany had plenty. Trucks, tanks, jeeps all run on oil, which they had very little.
This became a huge problem when they invaded the Soviet Union, because they soviets used a different rail gauge, so the Nazis had to either rebuild the rail line or try to capture Russian trains (which was not easy of course). So most of the Wehrmacht was actually on foot or horse-based. I believe I read the figure of 80% somewhere.
This created significant tactical problems for the German Blitzkrieg tactics. The core principle is that armored divisions break deep into the enemy lines to make encircling pincer movements. The infantry would then catch up from behind to complete the encirclement. However, because the infantry is of course way slower, the panzers would often find themselves way ahead, unable to push on further because of lacking infantry support.
Add to that the climate and the fact that most roads were unpaved. During spring and autumn, the whole countryside would turn into a giant pool of mud, making it a logistical nightmare.
@@masr8875 that maybe, but there’s sources for it. Citizen-Soldier magazine and the documentary series Battlefield repeated the story.
@@masr8875 The rail gauge switch is a nothing-burger. The Krauts only needed to shift one rail -- inwards -- and re-nail it.
A simple gauge stick -- think 2x4 -- was sufficient to establish the new gauge -- common labor could do the job.
In 1873, the ENTIRE US southern rail grid was re-gauged -- this way -- in 72-hours. Admittedly, materials were pre-staged, the boys trained.
The Krauts found it easy-peasy to re-gauge the rails. The KILLER was the Soviet destruction of:
Water towers;
Sleepers/Ties;
Bridges -- think of the thousands of dinky ones -- these proved to be a nightmare.
In the USSR, water towers were located much further apart than Europe.
The Krauts found that they had to tow an extra water tank -- all too often. (These had to come out of their ears.)
Even back in the 1860s it was discovered that it's easy-peasy to destroy sleepers -- with a railroad plough/plow.
Adolf never laid in enough sleepers for Barbarossa.
He ended up stealing ties from all over conquered Europe -- second hand sleepers.
About HALF of all railroad ties were pulled up from France and Belgium -- to send into the USSR... rails, too.
This just went on and on. After the war, this destruction was deemed a blessing -- by the envious British. (!)
But, that's another story.
The bridges that killed the Krauts: the tiny ones that you never notice... the ones over trivial creeks.
The Krauts had conquered at least 10,000 of these puppies... all of which the Soviets had blown up.
Adolf needed wood for them too. His boys were running all over Europe cutting down trees to replace the stuff lost.
“Gentlemen, you have fought like Lions and been led by donkeys.”
Today we are still led by donkeys.
Are we?
@@jarraandyftm I mean yeah, have you seen the state of our government?
@@Bluesfan1780 don’t care about our government. I’m not led by them. I’m led by officers.
@@jarraandyftm That's nice.
Are they still donkeys?
@@Bluesfan1780 no, not at all.
My mother was in the occupation of the Netherlands and even the Dutch feared the Russians more than their Nazi occupiers. Her sister hid a German deserter, he deserted because he got the news that his unit was being transferred to the Eastern Front against the Russians. The German soldiers knew those that were shipped to Russia didn't return. This deserter married my aunt after the war.
I think one of Russia's biggest advantages is that they adapt so quickly and will try anything that has a prayer. That's why they'll lose at first but as long as they last till winter then come spring you're fighting a whole new army from last year
You think that the millions of tons of war material, courtesy of the USA, had a little to do with that? Naw, communists march with grass and unicorns as their diet, right?
@ERRATAS 0202 I think the Russians will fight different after winter , Russia is a powerful country
Nah back then russias biggest advantage was it’s population, these days with how effective weapons are it Dosent work very well
Russians dont adapt.
They beat the germans like they beat napoleon. Through the winter and a contempt for the lives of the own citizens and soldiers.
What about the prayer of the mayter Tsar
Americans strike a great balance bet. having a defined hierarchy, but giving individuals at each level quite a bit of room to make decisions on the fly. (Of course, the Americans also supplied all the allies, incl. Soviets.) With the losses incurred by Soviets, it's no surprise that at war's end, Germans would rather surrender to anybody but them.
Out of the allies the Mericans where the ones who allowed for a lot of freedom, but it was Germany who developed Auftragstaktik. So it wasnt something which was really new to the germans.
@@mulmusfistus4128 whats Auftratastraktaktik
@@TheOnlyOneStanding8079 My understanding is it literally means "Mission tactics" - essentially meaning successfully completing the mission is key, no matter how you get it done
@@MrDdaland yes there is the "Befehlstaktik" I would say Order tactic were everything is planed so for example if you have to take a fortification the troops get the exact orders from the high command how they should attack when they should take what room or floor etc and the "Auftragstaktik" mission tactic only says you should take this fortification until for example 0700 o clock and then your group leader can make a plan how he want to proceed and if there are some difficulties he can very fast switch his plans and optimize the attack plan on the current situation
While of course it is 100% true to acknowledge the United States as the Arsenal of Democracy through WW2, I would like to give a biased and honourable mention to the British for supplying the Soviets with 1/3 of all received supplies. Not as impressive as 2/3 I'll grant you ;)
I think the countries in Europe might’ve fought harder because they were fighting for their very existence. Most of the times in their own countries . America was never really fighting for its very existence
America was mostly focused on the Pacific theatre. The Americans hard carried the war against Japan
@@achillesrodriguezxx3958 actually it’s my understanding that the official policy of the US government at the time was “Germany first”. I think the understanding was that Japan was a foregone conclusion. Nobody thought the Japanese were going to win, including some of the Japanese. But with that being said on both fronts, even if America lost both wars they were probably no plans to occupy United States. And its a lot harder to motivate yourself fighting in a foreign country that’s not directly threatening your homeland then fighting for your homeland. The British pilots for instance , were actively trying to stop their fellow countrymen from being bombed , Which made them better
@@MrSanford65 I think American troops in WW2 are too often underrated by our (British) mythology.
It's really annoying when Hollywood does the opposite and airbrushes out the contribution of other countries in their accounts. But that's no excuse for us to do the equivalent. After D-Day, the US military was enormously effective.
They also avoided some of the most stupid mistakes Hitler made, like diverting resources into massive super-tanks that were too heavy to cross bridges. Rather than macho posturing over who had the tank with the biggest gun, the US build huge quantities of cheap reliable workhorse military vehicles.
@@thomasstyan2066 I would of thought British troops are more underrated, I mean how many people know that the British a long with the Canadians faced 80 percent of the German armour in France? Not enough is told of the huge struggle to take Caen against Germanys best troops.
We didn’t because it wasn’t necessary. America could put men, equipment, and resources where they needed to be.
That’s how wars are won the vast majority of the time. Despite what Hollywood likes to portray.
For me all young men who fought in that war regardless of nationality were equally capable of acts of extraordinary bravery. Cultural differences were only surface deep and had only a small effect. It was the political leadership of nations that decided how effective those young men would be. However if I were a German back then, I would be most scared of capture by Russians and vice versa.
Spot on.
Coming soon. Part 3 Italy’s views on all the allies:
British empire - feared
USSR - feared
US - Feared
Germany - Feared. Hitler - ‘WTF?’ Mussolini - ‘you scare me’
Don't forget France.
Find out about the battle of Menton, 9 French soldiers stopped/killed hundreds of Italians.
My teddy bear - feared.
The enemy? His sense of duty was no less than yours, I deem. You wonder what his name is, where he comes from, and if he really was evil at heart. What lies or threats led him on this long march from home, or he would not rather have stayed there... in peace?
J R R Tolkien
My Opa was in the 8th Panzer Division. When I interviewed him in the 70s for my high school project he told me that the men would sit around and talk among themselves. They would say “We may take all this ground, but how do we hold it?” He also said Germany lost the war in 42 at Stalingrad. After that his goal was not to do anything stupid and make it home alive….if there was a home to come back too. He also mentioned that the Russian soldier was good. The generals would accept large casualties. Most of them were uneducated. He said it was simple math. The Russians could replace their losses and Germany could not….
Same when the Russians would attack the Finns during the Winter War! The Russians would send wave after wave of men against the outmanned Finns who were well positioned and would just keep mowing them down with machine guns as the Russians tried to attack across an open field. Granted these "Russians" were probably forced conscripts of many nationalities that would be forced into combat.
soviet*
Thank you for re-establishing the historical truth about France during WWII
Notice how the British were regarded as the best which is accurate. Also American Gens were poor compaired tp British and other allied Generals. Hollywood never shows this.
It’s hilarious that Germans felt Americans were “cheating” by using our industry to defeat them. Reminds me of the knife fight in Butch Cassidy. “Rules? In a knife fight?”
I think they were trying to imply that had they both had equal resources Germany would have defeated the US through the skill of there soldiers rather than just sheer numbers.
By this standard the Germans cheated massively in Poland 1939. They outnumbered the Poles 3-1 and got the USSR to also attack Poland on September 17th.
Or for that matter the unfair power advantage the Germans had against Norway, Greece, funny how hypocrital those Wehrmacht boys can be.
It was basically Germany accusing the Americans of using zerg rush tactics
@@cylontoaster7660 what are “Zerg rush tactics?”
@@ii8215 all i can say is thank God the Allies won. In Europe, it was the Soviets that sacrificed to deplete the Germans of men and materiel. The bottomline is “so the f*ck what?” We won, you lost
The first victory against the German army in World War Two did not come in Western Europe or amid the ruins of the eastern front. It took place at the small port of Tobruk in North Africa, at the hands of 9th Australian Division.
With the Poles I think.
the first defeat of the nazis was the battle of narvick by the royal navy. the second defeat was the battle of britain by the royal airforce and a few allies.
My mums Polish & as the video says Hitler thought Slavonic people had little or no right to live. Her dad fought Hitler in the Polish airforce, but what’s just as bad is Stalin sent my mum &female family to a slave camp in Siberia, he aided Hitler before the war, invaded Poland together& guarded Hitlers back until summer 1941& the Kremlin is now run by similar creatures.
Yeah mate my great grandpa was almost send to the gulag (managed to evade it) for being married to a polish. However what the Nazis did to slavs is uncomparable to anything Stalin could dream off. I hope Putins speaches of not killing civilians are true althrough i dont think he even knows what he says at this point
The fact Poland is independent today, despite all of the partitions and occupations they’ve endured, will never cease to amaze me.
Word
He said Slavic, not Slavonic
Poles are the most humiliated nation on the Internet
I know back in WW1 they feared the Americans pretty badly. Although it took us a while to get used to the front, Americans had been noted in their ability to keep pushing through. Like when one sector was pushed back, another sector would keep sending it. Even if that met taking large casualties, our boys were good at putting the Germans on the back foot. So I'd imagine there was more respect for the American army in WW2 by older veterans of WW1.
Problem with that assessment - you have to factor in ; the Americans came on at half time.!
@@1arritechno True, but prior to that the war was in a stalemate.
@@1arritechno Problem with that assessment - you have to factor in ; the Americans were located 7000+ kms away.
Yes, the US showed up at half time and only because of the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
A lot of the US WWI stuff was propaganda it isn't true. Like the Devil Dog US marines thing, it's simply not true. It was dreamt up & propagated by the Americans themselves, the Germans said no such thing.
As a french that sad to ear that our german enemies had more respect for us even after our defeat of 1940 than our allies
Il faut éviter de répondre à ce genre de commentaire… parfois, cela sort de la bouche des américains, et ils oublient bien trop souvent que si ils existent aujourd’hui, c’est grâce à la France.
yeah it's super overplayed, lose 1 time in a thousand years of great military history and you get made fun of
@@fostosenytb6407 Les Américains n'ont vraiment pas oublié l'aide française pendant la révolution. Mais il nous semble que les Français ont oublié que nous les avons aidés dans les deux guerres mondiales. Lorsque l'AEF débarqua en France en 1917, Pershing déclara : « Lafayette, nous sommes ici
@@the_bottle_imp rappelle moi pourquoi ils sont venus en Europe ?
@@fostosenytb6407 À pêcher
They obviously feared the Russians the most because of their brutality. As for the Americans being undisciplined, what German soldiers were referring to is the Americans being very unpredictable because they had a habit of not following their own doctrine and rules in battle. So this frustrated senior German leadership. There was even a well known Field Marshal when he was confronted by Hitler who wanted answers had responded by saying how can you defeat an army that doesn't follow its own rules.
I've heard that in humorous anecdotes but doubt there's any truth behind it. Americans probably came up with it like they did with the myth that marines were called teufelhunden or devil dogs. The Germans simply had that old school ideal of Prussian discipline which emphasizes outward appearance. The view being that most people do not see the soldier's performance on the field and only how he looks so wearing uniform according to regulations and standing straight is expected for repuation and morale. Images that portrayed scruffy troops weren't published in Germany while in the US only the top brass was that pedantic like Gen. Patton who wanted to ban even the cartoon characters Willie and Joe due to their portrayal of troops.
@@TheSuspectOnFoot nah there is truth to the fact Americans didn’t do things according the allies strategies. So you could argue some Germans had a problem with that but there’s no real evidence of all Germans or even many. So there is a chance some of that is true or at least just exaggerated.
@@TheSuspectOnFoot The US military had and to this day continues to try to have a high level of personal initiative with its members.
The guy on the ground usually knows whats happening better than the guy in a tent miles behind him, so they're encouraged to make a better choice or take opportunities if they see them.
So it's not really a lie, they're unpredictable because at any point someone might make a different decision based on what's happening at that moment. Whether or not it works out.
That'd certainly seem like being unpredictable or not following orders to an adversary, especially one as tightly regimented as the Heer/Wehrmacht.
As for doctrine, just look at the US WWII Tank Destroyer doctrine to see how closely that was followed.
Bullshit.
its funny what you say yet the germans consider Patton an american the best general they came up against.
I'd like to know what the Germans really thought about the Japanese. From what little I know about the relationship, it was of mere convenience as a Japanese were one of the few Nations willing to Ally with Germany and align their views to some degree. But as I understand it the relations were not very tight-knit, and to reiterate, I'd really like to know what the Germans actually thought of the Japanese.
The Japanese were viewed as the master race of the Asians. But were still, of course, considered interiors. Definitely an alliance of convenience. Vise versa.
Just about the only German servicemen who interacted with the Japanese were those few submariners who made the voyage to Japan to deliver valuable commodities needed by the Japanese war effort. An ex submariner myself, I once flew across the Atlantic seated next to an ex Kriegsmarine U-boat commander and we compared notes on WWII diesel boats and nuclear powered Polaris submarines. It goes without saying that a three month cruise on a nuke boat is a luxury cruise compared to a tiny diesel boat being pursued by the British, Canadians and Americans all at the same time. I was surprised to hear that German submarine quartermasters were warrant officers while American quartermasters are enlisted ratings.
@@AtmasImpaler Considered interiors, does that mean that they didn't go out much?
You may wish to consider the impact of the Canadians in the war against Germany and Italy. From their major role in the "Battle of the Atlantic" in guarding convoys and hunting U-Boats, to their "Devil's Brigade" with the Americans and Juno Beach landing on D-Day in Normandy, the Canadians fought valiantly. Canada may have been a smaller country by population, but they fought well above their weight class. Bravo Zulu.
Big facts... The Canadians fought like mad men... Rumor had it the Germans would try and avoid the Canadian troops at all cost because they were impossible to kill or get around.. The Canadians were the only country with a positive KDR against the Nazis
As usual they're just lumped in with the British, along with the Aussies, Kiwis, South Africans, Indians, and others.
And don't forget about the five or so tanks they contributed!
@@robertpearson8798 which is sad because Canada had its own objectives and beach head on D-Day.. I think it was Juno beach. They were a vital part of the allied war effort.
@@mikehunt5637 We’re talking about World War 2 and Canada produced more than 800,000 military transport vehicles, 50,000 tanks, 40,000 field, naval, and anti-aircraft guns, and 1,700,000 small arms.
As a fellow Aussie, I thought we'd get an honourable mention.. Rommel said he would've won the war if he had 10000 of us. Great vid, cheers!
I'm fairly certain most Australian units were deployed on the pacific front. Dnt quote me on that but that may be why they weren't mentioned. They also didn't mention Canadian soldiers but I assume that's cause they saw them as nearly the same as Americans.
@@justinbutler591 maybe but we know alot of them were also in North africa, especially tobruk
@ParkHillProjects right, they probably fought mostly Italians there. I love Australia, but to be fair idk if the Germans would've seen them as a threat seeing that Australia lost a war against emus lmaooo. Jk jk jk, ik the Australian military is very competent.
@@justinbutler591 Canadians were part of the British as were the Aussies, both who fought like men possessed.
@@justinbutler591 Worth reading up on Australia's involvement in the Nth African and European theatres. They fought in Syria, Libya, Greece all the way from 1939 to the 2nd battle of El Alamein. Yes, some were withdrawn to the Pacific after japan's entry, the 9th Division stayed on for Alamein. They also held Tobruk in its first seige, (the one when it wasn't taken by the Germans, unlike the second seige). Australian airmen served in Bomber and Fighter Commands throughout the war crewing one of the Dam Buster Lancasters, amongst other things. Rommel certainly respected Australian troops, and the NZers too. If I recall he said something like wanting to have Australians to attack and NZers to defend and he would be unbeatable. He also said that they were the elite troops of the British Empire, for what that's worth.
Respect is earned, not given
In an unique twist of events, my french grandfather fought in Dunkirk and Bir-Hakeim
Both my great great uncles were in Dunkirk
PS im french
Merci à ton papi!
Always have to give credit to the polish pilots who joined the RAF and fought in the battle of Britain under the 303 squadron. They had more collective air victories than any other squadron during the battle of britain.
We must remember 303 squadron was comprised of Czech pilots aswell.
@@THE-BUNKEN-DRUMand British lol
@@dalj4362 : True.
There were Brits in the 303 also
"The British Empire will be doomed after the war..." Well he was right about that at least.
And it's not exactly doing brilliantly now, almost 80 years on
So in other words the UK gave up and sacrificed its empire for Europe and its people. Clearly the UK didn't do it for itself or its own benefit. Fast forward to now and how Europe is treating the UK, it doesn't seem like a worthy sacrifice, guess its assured the UK won't help a 3rd time
@@tesstickle7267 yea like colonization wasn't a thing because good guys yea.
@@apollo-eu4fk I mean, the British empire was the only allied faction that chose to be in the war - the Soviets were invaded, the Polish were invaded, the Chinese were invaded, the norwegians were invaded the various balkan nations were invaded, the French knew they were on the chopping block if they sat by and America was attacked and Germany declared war on them. Out of all the powers, only Britain and its brothers in the commonwealth fought for others, because the alternative for Britain just swapped France with Germany for the commander of the continent and aimed them at the Soviets who we also didn't like after fighting them in the Russian civil war, however the Nazis were bad even by oldschool Britain's sketchy standards for conquest so we felt obliged to step in.
@@userchannel6237 No shit colonisation was a bad thing in retrospect, but people don't act in retrospect they do what they think is best at the time and with the modes of thinking of their time. If you had a choice between attacking someone weaker than you to grow more powerful, or standing by helpless while someone who hates you grows strong enough to kill/enslave you, your family and friends and then force the survivors to attack yet more people under the banner of their new master (rendering your sacrifice pointless), what would you choose? Maybe you would sacrifice yourself and your loved ones, but would you expect everyone else to do the same? In a time as cut-throat as medieval/rennaissance Europe, that was basically the choice that rulers and millitary leaders had to make on behalf of entire nations. You might argue I'm justifying colonialism (that is not my intent; it was still fucked up and should not be repeated), but the better question is why do most people not consider that the 'evil colonialists' were also people faced with their own choices and reasoning? It's ironic that we so easily dehumanise those who dehumanise others, and then wonder why cycles of cruelty repeat.
It is unfortunate that largescale power in our world rellies on the number and degree to which you exploit others - and it's so much easier/faster to do so without seeking their consent first. Those who seek power even for good reasons still do evil things, but they are better than those who seek power for entirely selfish reasons. It's fortunate then that we now live in a somewhat saner world most of us can take the easy choices without allowing those without even the pretense of morality to become unstoppable. Except oh wait, evil/self-absorbed people with great power still exist and there's no moral figure to oppose them who also has the power to make an impact, I wonder why...
My father fought during WW2 he was in the Royal Artillery firstly at Dunkirk, then after managing to get back to Britain he got shipped out to North Africa, (el Alamein) then on to Sicily, and Italy (monte cassino) finally ending the war stationed in northern Italy. While stationed in northern Italy his unit was posted as guards to a German POW camp I always remember him telling me if you had German officers in charge of British soldiers they would be unbeatable. He didn't rate British officers obviously. The best British general he reckoned he served under was General Alexander, he didn't rate Montgomery. Even though Montgomery is the more well known. I never asked my father what he thought of American troops, and in turn he never mentioned anything about them, and to be honest I don't think he had a lot of interaction with them during his time in the war.
Your list of places your father fought matches nearly the same as one of my grandfathers, though he mentioned Tobruk as well. He was in the Cheshire regiment. Wish I had been older and could have talked more about his time in the war as adult to him. RIP Charley Graves.
My grandad was royal atrillery too, same deployments. I wonder if they knew eachother.
Which regiment? My dad was in the 4th RHA in North Africa, France, Belgium, Netherlands and Germany.
My father was a professional soldier 1935 to 1958, and fought in France in 1940, and France to Netherlands 1944-45. He, too, admired Alexander, and a few others, but not Montgomery, and I know that he and his colleagues thought him conceited, and not very clever.
I've read quite a lot about Montgomery since then, and believe him a flawed man, keen to represent himself as better than he believed he was, and believing himself better than he actually was. In other words, he was no genius general. However, he was competent, and quite good at raising the morale of soldiers, even if officers were harder to persuade.
One comment was correct. America's greatest strength was our industrial capacity. A German tank officer was quoted as saying " A Tiger tank was worth 10 Shermans but the Americans always came with 11 Shermans." The USA fed and supplied not only ourselves but our allies as well. That bodes badly for this century. The Chinese now dominate industrial manufacturing.
Yes, low end manufacturing of mid tier goods. Not an opinion, but fact. Any good which requires high end conductors comes from Taiwan, Japan, or Korea. Not to mention China is sitting on a demographic time bomb and they import 85% of their energy and the inputs needed to feed their people. One US carrier group placed in the Indian Ocean or the straight of Malacca and Chinese energy supplies are cut off. Six months later you have half a billion cold, starving and dying Chinese… and they lack the naval capacity to do anything to stop it
@@thomasmoon2697 Good point. Much of China’s energy comes from Australian coal.
My Farther in law who passed away in 2014 fought in WW2 as a Royal Navy Aviator…..he trained in the US and had huge regard for the fighting spirit of the Americans. He saw time and again this manifest itself in huge acts of risk taking where the British would generally be more cautious.
I imagine Germans were more nervous about fighting Russians and British, but the thing with Americans like us, a lot of us that were descended from German immigrants and lived in areas of America with heavy gun ownership, were sent to the Philippines, including my Swiss grandfather on my mom's side, for obvious reasons and to avoid communication confusion.
When occupying Berlin many years ago I met an older German who said that he had fought the Americans from Normandy all the way to Germany. He said that they soon learned to not shoot at the Americans unless they absolutely had to because when they did shoot there would be a million dollars worth of Artillery shells coming their way AND that he had previously fought on the Russian front and had thought that nothing could be worse than Russian artillery, until he came under American artillery fire. The Germans thought the British infantry was better and that the American armor was better, but they feared the US artillery.
History will tell us that with other things being relatively equal, the military that can supply itself with the most equipment and supplies will most probably win a long war. I believe it was Patton who said amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics. In both wars the Germans were simply out produced, out manned and out supplied.
Patton could've cared less about logistics since it was someone else's job to deliver the supplies her ordered for his troops.
@@billwilson3609 But he knew the importance of supply - particularly fuel. That is what got him in trouble sometimes as he poached supplies and argued with his superiors over logistics.
@@derjaeger3321 Patton was well aware of the importance of logistics being a graduate of West Point and serving in Pershing's expedition against Poncho Villa where they used motor vehicles and tracked agricultural tractors to haul supplies, troops and horses thru the desert. George learned how to draw supplies during that, during WW1 and as the head the first US Army tank school.
He attended the US Army War College that only taught how to determine how much supplies units would need when at base, during maneuvers and in action then how to get those distributed once delivered by the quartermasters corps. During the Louisiana Maneuvers, Patton's army was directed to take Shreveport from the south. Patton decided he could send his armor unit thru neutral East Texas to seize the city from the north where it was undefended yet couldn't obtain the tank trucks full of gasoline to accompany them. Since George was wealthy, he handed out cash to his tankers so they could refill their fuel tanks at the gas stations along the roads in Texas. They captured the city and George won a medal that was taken away after ranking officers in the losing army complained about Patton not following orders. Patton also had problems obtaining replacement parts for his unit's trucks and tanks from the Quartermasters Corps during maneuvers and training so ordered those from Sears Roebuck over the telephone and had them rush shipped at his expense.
Patton helped develop the plans the invasion of North Africa and Sicily so made sure that the troops had plenty of supplies. He also took part in planning the Normandy operations. Once in action as a field commander, he expected to receive supplies on a regular basis and didn't care to hear excuses from Bradley and Ike on why they couldn't. When Patton couldn't obtain the gas needed to continue his advance, Bradley ordered him to stop once his tanks started running out of gas. Patton radioed back that he would then order the troops to continue their advance on foot. That prompted Bradley to create what became the Red Ball Express to rush fuel and supplies to Patton.
@@billwilson3609 You will get no argument from me. I am certainly no Military Historian but I view Patton as as complete a General as Sherman. Patton had his faults of course he was much more a maverick than Sherman and he was his own worse enemy with his personal views, and had a bit of difficulty working within the political sensitivities of the allied command, but he was as fine a complete battlefield General as you could get in WW II. Could you imagine him missing the opportunities to be had early at Anzio? However I am not sure how he would be in the defensive. We were lucky to have the talents of Ike, Bradley and Patton. Ike could deal with the Machiavellian politics of the Allies, Bradley had the personality to keep the disparate needs of his command going and Patton the aggressive charger. Plus the multitude of GIs who slogged it out and adapted on the go. Truly the Greatest Generation.
@@derjaeger3321 The Anzio landing was the brainstorm of Winston Churchill. He proposed it after General Alexander replaced Ike as commander of the Med Operations. US Generals Clark and Lucas thought it was a stupid and told that to Alexander but had to go along with his orders to plan and carry out Operation Shingle.
Lucas had the element of surprise so managed to have 36,000 troops and 3,200 vehicles ashore at the end of the day. He sent them a few miles inland to take up defensive positions while ships began unloading supplies. The Army and Navy still had problems doing that in an organized fashion so the various supplies were intermixed in piles where the troops had to search thru them to bullets, rations and other badly needed front line supplies. Lucas decided to hold off on offensive operations until he got that mess sorted out.
The US Navy and Army were having the same problem with beach head supplies in the Pacific so in 1944 the Navy sent over a trouble shooter named Commander Richard Milhous Nixon to study the situation to figure out solutions. He did which got beach head supplies delivered and distributed in an more organized matter for the rest of the war.
Eisenhower was once quoted something to the effect that the two best weapons he had at his disposal were the bulldozer and the Dakota. Logistics matter. A lot.
Thanks for the reupload. I will make the same argument that I made last time before the original was taken down - that I would take Germany's opinion of the US with a grain of salt given their perception of America as a decadent nation with no martial military culture such as the European powers had. German leadership could respect their European adversaries given their long history of warfare with each other and appreciation for martial nobility over domestic freedoms and liberty. America, however, had no military history with Germany outside of the First World War and did not have aristocratic families to carry on military traditions in the same way that Prussians and Bavarians did. It's understandable that many German officers and soldiers would attempt to reduce American victories to a mere triumph of material over combat acuity given their professional army with its hundreds of years at the forefront of modern warfare lost to an upstart nation led by citizen soldiers. In other words, they were coping.
I guess huffing copium has been a military tradition since long before the 21st century, then.
Several point in reply to your argument:
Yes. Germany did have a bad opinion of the US at the time (as noted in the clip.)
America didn’t have much of a ‘military culture’ is also correct. The only conflicts the US had been involved in other than as an ally, (excluding Civil war / Indian was) were the war of 1812 (a draw), The Spanish / American war (Philippines), and the Mexican war (Correct me if I’m wrong but the same is still true [unless you include Granada]) none of these were modern warfare against a modern mechanised army.
‘Domestic freedoms and liberty’. If you were white (and preferably wealthy)
‘No military history outside the First World War’. Germany faced the US for couple of months in WW1. Fought along side the US in China (56 days). And many of the Mexican ‘advisors’ in the US Mexico War were German they also visited US war games. N,B. The only military history between the Germans and British was the Napoleonic wars (Prussians 1800s), German mercenaries (Hessians 1760s) and 4 years of WW1 (so not so different).
The American Troops started out WW2, against the Germans in a less than exemplary way, and as they say “mud sticks.” To the Germans the US were Interventionists who didn’t want to fight for freedom. When they finally entered the war, Germany saw the US troops were badly trained, badly equipped and badly led. (Catrina Pass). Luckily the US was quick to learn. The troops got better, the equipment got either better or good enough with superior numbers, and the commanders became some of the best in the world (Eisenhower, Bradley, Patton, etc).
Re professional army, The German army was highly efficient from top down to the lowest private, they all new their jobs and could also do the job of the man above them, if called for. The British army was similar but only really up to Non Coms (NCO), a professional army of “lions led by donkeys.” The french were mainly conscripts, with the same type of leaders as the British, The Russian officers had practically all been shot. The US leadership still thought that cavalry was the answer to everything.
‘professional army with its hundreds of years at the forefront of modern warfare’. Germany had NO army to speak of in the1920s, the army that conquer France in ‘39 could hardly be called modern, mostly Pz1’s and Pz2’s. By 1945 the German army was still one of the least mechanised army’s in the war, relying more on horses than horse power. They would never have been able to match the material output of the USA, even if their factories weren’t being destroyed by the Mighty 8th. The US output of vehicle supplied the forces of the US, Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Free French, Poles, Russians, etc. Never underestimate the achievement of the power of the US factory output. We don’t, (we’ve only just finished repaying the lend lease).
@@wyverncoch4430 >"If you were white (and preferably wealthy)"
That wasn't the point I was making. My point was that America's interests have historically been confined to resolving their own issues in pursuit of freedom and liberty. Whether they were successful in doing so is irrelevant to the broader discussion of how old world empires perceived the US because of their domestic interests compared to the empire building mentality of European nations (at the time).
>"Germany faced the US for couple of months in WW1."
I already mentioned the First World War. Regardless, Britain fought in WWI far longer than the US did, and England had a much longer history overall with Germany and its predecessor states. The Napoleonic Wars lasted over a decade with GB and the German states fighting alongside each other throughout the entire ordeal. Several wars occurred prior to the unification of Germany between the Holy Roman Empire and England. And the two empires would have worked together on numerous occasions for mutual colonial interests in places like Africa.
>"Germany had NO army to speak of in the1920s"
Yes, and that was the ONLY time they were without an army. That's what we call an exception.
>"the army that conquer France in ‘39 (1940) could hardly be called modern, mostly Pz1’s and Pz2’s"
It was absolutely modern by 1940 standards. France wasn't going into battle against Germany with M1 Abrams and A10 Warthogs. At least German tanks had radios. French tankers were still using flags to communicate.
>"Never underestimate the achievement of the power of the US factory output"
Right, but what I'm saying don't use America's material superiority as a crutch to excuse German losses and dismiss tactical US victories; as many people have a bad habit of doing.
@@wyverncoch4430 despite all that the western front from 44 to 45. ~70% of the personnel and casualties were american. meaning they fought as well as the brits.
Why would you take that opinion with a grain of salt? That opinion was made before the war, then it was proven during the war, And what martial military culture does American have? Manifest Destiny and losing to a colony in 1812? Or how about losing to a bunch of farmers with straw hats and ak-47s? America quite literally has the most embarrassing war history of any major fighting country. You lose more troops in 1 year than france and Britiain etc lost in 5 years of harder fighting. Not to mention all the war atrocities from Americans in modern war, and the friendly fire, you can find more American friendly fire videos than successful operations.
It would be interesting to see a similar video about Germany's allies and friendly countries. Italy, Hungary, Finland, Japan and so on
America had soldiers of Japanese descent fighting the Germans and soldiers of German descent fighting the Japanese. If the French were good, fine, we had lots of soldiers of French descent. If the British were good, fine, we had lots of soldiers of British descent. If the Russians were good, fine, we had lots of soldiers of Russian descent. The second largest ethnic group in America at the start of WWII was the Germans. I can think of two men of German descent who were pretty important fighting men for the United States in WWII, Admiral Nimitz and General Eisenhower, both born in Texas.
Japanese weren't allowed to fight and instead kept interned since America didn't trust any Asiatics, be them Chinese or Japanese they were all seen as part of the 'yellow peril'
@@joshjonson2368 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/442nd_Infantry_Regiment_(United_States)
Yes they were allowed to, and not only that, they made up the vast majority of the most decorated unit in US history
@@joshjonson2368 The U.S. 442nd Infantry Regiment was made up of Japanese Americans, and saw heavy action in Europe.
@@joshjonson2368 The US only interned Japanese living on the West Coast.
Germany only lost, because the US had help by Soldier Boy, vampire E. Northmann and S. Salvatore, Steve Rogers, Wolverine ... thats unfair, just like the US economy, the Russian manpower and killing German officers instead of normal soldiers. And the biggest respectless cheat was the overuse of air strikes. It is time for the ancient Greece warfare: 1 person each duel each other and who ever looses surrenders. Wars cost so much: destroys lives, wealth, nature, it is stupid.
I heard something about a German veteran who said he admired the Russians for their courage and the British for their stubbornness. When asked about the Americans he went into a tirade of cursing and angrily said he hated the Americans' overuse of artillery and grenades.
I'll just bet he did. THAT WAS THE IDEA!
@@bradleyheck7204 but when it comes to respect and admiration it makes sense for the US not to have been ranked too highly. The European powers had their industrial bases bombed on a nightly basis for years, whilst the USA massively profited and built up its industrial base purely due to its happenstance of geographical isolation from the war. USA benefitted massively from british tech sharing such as the Tizard mission for radar and even the maud commitee and transferring the insights of the tube alloys project (the original and most developed nuclear programme) which was subsumed into the manhatten project. When germans encounter problems from the british or the french, they are encountering problems from pure skill. when they encounter the artillery that the USA can manufacture efficiently from pure luck of being isolated from the problems of war? It's not really that impressive.
@@lokischeissmessiah5749 It didn't really matter in the end, did it? Quantity has a quality all of its own.
@@bradleyheck7204 Right, I'm just answering specifically in terms of respect/ admiration since there's a lot of Americans in these comments seemingly butthurt that european countries received more respect and the Americans didn't. Quantity in this case is just "having a large population" (and one free from being bombed each night). That's great and all, it's just not impressing anyone because it's kinda just luck and happenstance. So no on really thinks your artillery and sht was cool. But skilled soliders, disciplined and ingenius tactics, bravery, resolve etc, which the germans saw in other armies? That is cool.
@@lokischeissmessiah5749 Aren't brits are also have luck due to being an Island Empire at that time? despite that they are being bomb by the Germans?
Funnily enough, it was the Soviet Red army the one that broke the Wehrmacht(Battle of Kursk) and ended up crushing the brunt of the German man military. Goes to show that underestimating an enemy is very dangerous.
Without the millions of tons of USA war material shipped to the USSR, they would have been toast!
And now Russia is the west's worst enemy, again!
Propaganda is dangerous. Just like today. The West lives in an imaginary world.
Nonsense the Russians through lives away without a care. Millions taken prisoner and slaughtered by Russian incompetence. Western democracies couldn’t do that. You haven’t a clue.
Especially underestimating an enemy that you made very clear to consider subhuman and want to exterminate him
@@maximilianodelrio Bullshit.
i really start to think that the germans respected more the french than the allies
Of course, he disproves it in his conclusion he makes, but it must be from his own identity bias.
The first world war was a trauma for the german and french soldiers. English soldiers were there too, but not the main forces germans had to fight. England and France were the two superpower in europe for the last centuries, but while english superpower came from its navy, france's came from its land army. And they were feared by everyone in europe that they almost entirely conquered even by fighting them almost all at once. Germany never thought of winning agaisnt the french so quickly and easily in the second war.
I mean if you exclude the numbers advantage and logistic supplies advantage that both americans and russians had, the french army was the best in efficency after the germans newly empowerement.
The two reasons why france decayed and lead to germany taking the power house place was demographic of course, and also the mediocre elite behaviour ( as said, french army were lions lead by donkeys not refering to english army as said in the video).
And looking at culturally and not military, it wasn't again a debate on whom had the greatest too.
@@alexisbelfer7881 The saying in German is more like "They are lion led by sheep" about the French soldier and it does not come from WW2 or WW1 it's much more ancient (Antiquity/Medieval era)
@@plumebrise4801 no way (for the time period).
Thanks man to have made a tribute about the French with respect 🫡 Like we say in France : « The french soldiers were lions commanded by sheeps » 🇫🇷
@BORAT SAGDIYEV Nah, that's happened because of USA.
Like everytime saddly...
@BORAT SAGDIYEV Le Pen was never elected in France ;)
When the blacks americans soldiers fought bravely during WW1, France offer them to parade in Paris.
But US government said no because they were blacks, and France made them parade somewhere else, in a smaller place.
When the liberation came during WW2, Americans accepted to go by Paris on one condition : soldiers parading must all be white. And this time, this should apply to French soldiers as well.
There seems to be some interesting contrast between the Germans “mixed” views on the American army in WWII and the views of Germans who had to fight US Marines in WWI.