I feel like the audience didn't fully absorb the majority of the talk - from the questions, it seems like the Wehrmacht myths still were dominant in their minds.
A rather good Q & A section after the lecture. Usually these lectures end and there is no time for questions. The questions afterwards and answers provided are as good or better than the lecture itself.
The Germans went into the USSR apparently expecting that its industrial capacity and population hadn't changed in 20 or so years. And then wondered why they failed.
@@evanhunt1863 Guderian, and other Reichswehr officers trained in the Soviet Union, because Germany was not permitted to have tanks per the Versailles treaty. That would have given them some data, but doesn't seem to have been exploited.
I liked the speaker’s mention of the US reaction after not winning in Vietnam to show that the Germans weren’t unique in blaming civilians for a military loss.
I thought the Allies defeated the Germans in WW2. US, Soviet Union, Great Britain and her commonwealths and dominions. All helped one and another, and stayed united thru the cause.
How much did the consumption of drugs by many soldiers in the German army during World War II affected outcomes of battles or the overall outcome of World War II? From 1939 to 1945, the Third Reich astonished Europe with its Blitzkrieg on all battlefronts. Its military efficiency has since then been a leitmotiv of history studies. This has been traditionally attributed to its technological superiority and optimisation, as well as its innovative strategies. Indeed, everything was accurately calculated, from the weight of the firearms to the offensive timings. The Wehrmacht would not leave anything to chance. However, there is one more trick to consider: performance-enhancing drugs
First, your lectures are great. As an old student of military history from the Swedish Military College I appreciate your take on things. However, the quality of the video and audio are sadly not up to the quality of the talks. Maybe if you had slightly better quality (say 480p) you would have more traffic to your videos. Thank you!
@@thethirdman225 @Mark Willies Ok. Mr. Megargee blames German general staff for Hitler's politics. He misunderstands the concept of the "will" in command. He thinks it is stubbornness or ego contest. He understands the command principles as a set of rigid rules. He proves the incompetence of the general staff with mutually exclusive proofs - officers disrespected the chain of command but disrespected too little when they disagreed. He believes the chain of command was faulty because the did not properly identify the basic principles of German command. He mixes military and non-military subjects, such as diplomacy and binds military and foreign intelligence into one group, they should not be. Military officers can be advisors but not decision makers in diplomacy and here is where Hitler failed. He claims that German logistics were bad based on the amount of officers assigned. He assumes US officers were as good as German. There are only a few specific military areas where German logistics failed, but the usual blame goes to the civilian government that failed to mobilise the economy in time. There is also no proof that German logistics were worse than Allied, they were likely better, considering the longer distances German army was capable of and the fact that it was largely horse driven, whereas WAllied armies were all motorised. German military intelligence was no worse than Allied. As Germans, so did all WAllies expect easy German victory against the Soviets. The principal advantage of WAllied intelligence against Germans was entirely based in civilian skill of Polish and British cryptographers. There is literally only one single major mistake in German strategic thinking, the conviction of being able to defeat the USSR in one season. Everything else depended on this. All Allied efforts were only successful because they could bind 70% of German army in Russia and Soviets survived only because the UK and USA upheld the production of entire sectors of industry in the crucial year of 1942. Mr. Megargee's entire assumptions on the proper conduct of military operations are based on misunderstanding this event. Germans never planned to conquer entire Russia. They didn't make wrong logistic plans, they misunderstood the potential of communism and the people's will to fight. In military terms they achieved the planned - the destruction of the Soviet army in Europe. But there were 100 more divisions ready before the campaign could continue. That is the mistake he should be focusing on. What is ironic in all of this is that the US army of ww2 had a much more sober opinion on the events and flatly admitted that only tremendous number disparity were able to stop Germans. This was also the base of post war US doctrines. Just bring more weapons to the fight than the opponent.
The dude who wrote Westmoreland's War did a pretty good lecture on command failings in Vietnam. Honestly, it's pretty easy to find a few Vietnam lectures on this channel, and some other channels have the Afghanistan ones you want. If you want this specific lecture, do it yourself! There's plenty of sources to pull from and plenty of lectures to watch to get all the pieces of the picture, and I'd genuinely love to see your lecture on it!
Even a top-notch OKW would not have saved Germany. Failure to get the oil for its economy and the fact that it was very centralized led to crippling shortages across the board. Without a working economy, collapse was inevitable. Very similar story for Japan in fact.
40:45 -- "They weren't concerned about the United States." Their memories must have failed them: it was the entry of the U.S. into WW1 that doomed Germany to defeat. In anticipation of the arrival of U.S. forces, Germany launched the 1918 Spring Offensive -- which failed. Once enough U.S. troops had landed in France, the Western Allies went on the offensive and quickly defeated an exhausted Germany. How could they have forgotten that?
Kevin Byrne Perhaps they simply did. The US military had fewer troops than Bulgaria if I remember in the 1930s. The buildup still took years for a 1944 landing.
Our role in 1918 was limited. The French and British did the heavy lifting because our troops were too inexperienced. We did add our weight, counterbalancing the transfer of German troops from east to west in the Spring.
@@JRobbySh -- As I said, Germany could have tried to hold their positions in the West and fight a defensive war. However, Germany decided to launch a desperate, last ditch offensive -- because they could see the troopships pouring Americans into France. The German offensive failed and German resistance crumbled. I'm not diminishing the roles of the British or the French, but the prospect of fighting all of those Americans drove the Germans to desperation.
@@kevinbyrne4538 I don't know, due to the limited American role in WW1 I think they might have thought that Americans would be just some yokels relying on British experience and supporting the Brits. The US did not have a huge experience with wars in Europe at the time, even in WW1 the role was very limited. There was not much of an experience with big wars for the US since the Civil War too, and that was almost a 100 years before WW2, so despite all the economic might of USA they might have believed that US would lack will to fight abroad, in Europe, for whatever reason and thought Americans to be more like businessmen and ''I want deal" people than warriors. In a way there were correct as in 30s US didn't really have a massive army and by late 1941 American tech for fighting the war was worse compared to what the Reich had. It took time to build up. The fact is, Europe had been gearing for war for some years already, US had not. When we look at it through today's prism it might seem strange how they didn't see it to be a huge problem, but at the time USA was still kinda on par or even behind British Empire and Nazi Germany in tech, or when it comes to military tech it was certainly behind as those countries had already prepared for war for a few years and in war technologies develop rapidly, like tanks and the use of them from 1939 to late 1941. Or planes. USA could build a lot of trucks and ships though and was an economic powerhouse but it could be uncertain how interested they would be to commit huge armed forces to Europe when they also had to fight Japan and how effective these soldiers would be, since Germans knew that they had been prepped culturally for war for years while Americans... maybe they thought they would be French-like
It wasn't just U.S. forces but that did contribute to the collapse. We need to remember that Germany was fighting on two fronts with limited resources. In fact the reason Germany was the aggressor in WWI is that when it had developed economically most of the world had already been divided up among other empires so the only way it could get its "place in the Sun" would be to fight them for one. The British Empire did not have this issue. As Winston Churchill admitted in a moment of candour during the 1913-14 debate over naval estimates: “We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left in unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us.” I recommend the following video, even if I disagree with what it says about the significance of the outbreak of revolution in Germany in 1918. The Ending of World War I: The Road to 11 November th-cam.com/video/kqJsKRtiBOQ/w-d-xo.html He says at 7:02 "I would say that fundamentally without American entry the best that the Allied side could have extracted from this war would have been a compromise and a compromise that was probably unfavorable. So the fact that the Allies achieve a victory, even if it's a limited victory, in 1918 American contribution is vital to that. But the American contribution is very slow to take full effect and during 1917 America's entry into the war is counteracted by a series of other things Russian Revolution mutiny in the French army Britain near to bankruptcy..."
Many Americans believe the US defeated Nazi Germany and are unaware of the destruction of the Wehrmacht by the Red Army. This is shown by the number of German soldiers killed by the Red Army on the Eastern front is estimated at 2,742,909. Those killed by all other Allies is estimated at 534,683 and only began ground fighting 10 months before the Germans surrendered. The supplying of trucks, food and aircraft which greatly helped the Soviet army.
I am American and always knew who suffered the most (Russians) and who inflicted the most damage to the Germans,again Russians,clearly the U.S. gave up the least and gained the most. this is not a knock on my country just facts
Rog volley There are few who agree with us. So let us not tire of correcting Hollywood, it takes nothing away from the brave Western Allies who fought Nazis from D-Day to the German surrender. If you have not seen Remember the Russians on D-Day, it is worth reading. AT: asiansecurityblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/remember-the-russians-on-d-day/
+theoldprof Well Americans did win the war for the Allies. Deaths really mean nothing, since anyone can send people to die, before we go further I would just like to add your number is total dead in the Eastern front, not killed by Red Army, if your going by Overmans statistics that is. His total statistics for killed in action is 2,303,320. For all fronts. For all fronts since I feel you need to read this twice. So either find a number that better suits your needs of whatever propaganda your trying to spread, or admit your own failure to read into details. Overmans total dead in the German army was 5,318,531, minus the two numbers you said and we have 2,040,939 left unaccounted for. There should only be 1,689,520 as those were prisoners of war, added with final battles in Germany. Change your wording too, since your talking about all other allies only fighting 10 months before Germany surrendered, when that's really bullshit because you had fighting in Africa since June 10th, 1940. Britain was a ally and they fought with the French since the start of the War, and in the Fall of France which started on May 10th, 1940. Poland was a ally to, need I tell you that the USSR and Germany invaded Poland to start this war. All this fighting happening before the USSR was really even in the war. Some further evidence that death means nothing, 321,000-363,000 total casualties on the Soviet side in the Winter War. 70,000 total casualties on the Finnish side of the Winter war. Only two ways to take that. Admit death means nothing and move on to a different talking point. Fight and say Finland won the Winter War. Just to add a point America captured 3 million German prisoners of war, Britain captured 3,600,000 POWs, why the Soviet Union only captured 3 million German prisoners of war, need I mention the Soviet Union killed, worked to death, or starved about a million of those, with America and Britain combined only ending with 12 thousand dead at MAX. With all that outta the way I will finally be able to talk about why it was America that won the war for everyone. America took Japan outta the war. There's not a single major contribution that any other power made in the war with Japan that took place without America. So America took on the country that made this a World War and beat them into submission. America kept Britain in the war. This kept 40 percent of the German Army defending the Western front. There's also all the American and British bombing and crippling of German industry that stopped them from being able to properly equip their armies, get tanks out to fight, or make synthetic fuel. Bombing would also include destroying of almost any German infrastructure to, stopping resources or equipment from being sent anywhere. It was really Americas, and Britain's grasp of logistics that won the war in Europe.
+theoldprof Your point about the Red Army is right but the western allies did not wait until D-Day to fight. Britain and France fought in France until in the fight continued France fell. Then Britain, her Empire and the Free French/Free Poles etc fought in Africa, Greece, Syria, Sicily and Italy, not to mention the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic which arguably was the crucial front of the entire war, since US forces and Lend Lease materiel could never have crossed the ocean if Germany had grabbed control of the sea.
+theoldprof - Do you have a source for this narrative that Americans believe the United States defeated Nazi Germany? I've never read a book or an article that takes that view, and never heard a lecture or speech that makes such a claim. Most Americans who know anything about the war are aware that the Soviet Union did most of the ground fighting in Europe. Hollywood of course, when it does movies about the war, mostly makes them about Americans. Does any other nation's film industry do otherwise?
Excellent lecture. First eye-opener in quite a while, and particularly in the revelation that the army was really hand in hand with the SS in the exploitation and commission of war crimes in the occupied zones.
I am baffled that there people believing the Nazi soldiers were clean. I am hearing this for the first time and apparently this view is wildly shared. I am not sure though were the notion originates from. These people were the armed forces of a Nazi regime. How can they possibly innocent? It is on the same level of somebody claiming the IS soldiers are clean and only the political Part of the IS is at fault.
Professor, thank you. It really gives me pride that I am an U.S. Citizen who had such such an impact on the unbelievable results of my countries involvement in WWII. My father and my uncle risks their lives in achieving that Victory. Unfortunately, what I see today gives me pause in whether our descendants understand what was sacrifices for their prosperity and honor, not to mention the benefits to mankind. There is obviously a higher power involved, and this is from someone who has advance degrees in both technology and and Business.
Do u enjoy (((their))) precious liberal democracy? Or u haven't had enough degeneracy yet? Your father fought for the banksters and the deep state of the paedophiles. Your state was/is the enemy, nor another country at the other side of an ocean, trying to liberate it's self from the slavery of debt and (((their))) grip.
Why do you need to brag about your degrees in your rambling incoherent comment? You have very poor grammar for a US Citizen with multiple "advanced degrees" and you seem highly delusional and mentally unstable.
@@alexm566 Valkyrie was conducted by colonels. The general staff was still completely loyal to Hitler. It was really only a small pool of officers that saw through the BS.
@@Humorless_Wokescold I am sure they were all smart enough to see through the BS, just like the current Russian generals, but they're in too deep to do anything about it.
@@alexm566 ok that I agree with. Hell, I bet German generals hung on for a lot of the same reasons Russian generals are. There's a lot of money in being a high ranking military commander in a corrupt nation.
Good answer around the 44 minute mark on why Hitler declared war on the US. A couple of additional comments. 11 December had been planned for months--U-boats were positioned off the Atlantic Seaboard, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean. This had to have been planned months before for them to all start on 11 December.
I was being sarcastic with my first sentence, which unfortunately doesn't show up well. I was making the statement that the German declaration of war on the US was not something decided on after Japan attacked the US--indeed that idea was ridiculous. There clearly had been months preparing for this offensive against the US (particularly against US coastal trade). The US military budget was substantially higher for the fiscal year beginning in July 1941 than in any of the years prior--it had effectively doubled over 1940/41. US naval forces were becoming substantially more active and there had been a "phony peace" for five months in the Atlantic. Yes, Lead-Lease was part of the issue. Germany was facing an increasingly active USN that threatened Germany's only hope to defeat Britain--cutting off its trade. It took time to prepare for this offensive. It didn't just happen over night.
They even used short range as well as U-boots in the operation. All got away scot free after inflicting heavy losses on shipping. The German Navy did well despite been short-sheeted in war production. Raeder quit for that reason. Never figured why he got hit for war crimes.
Look how weak Russia looks in 2023...it probably looked comparably weak in 1941...Germans use to taking over what were basically city states in Europe as well. It gets really really big as you live east and there are a ton of people out there.
I don’t think that Iran is two weeks away from having “the bomb” but they are close to having perhaps enough fissionable uranium to envision how to deploy something with help from the Russians. The Iranians do have some unproven missile systems that are allegedly capable of reaching our carriers and putting them effectively out of service for months. There was no acceptable reason to create enmity with Russia. There was possibly more reason to be hostile toward Iran, but our little general staff (Blinken and Sullivan - a two-headed exercise in incompetence unlike Germany’s von Hindenburg and Ludendorff who were competent but lacking the firepower and manpower to fulfill their plans) has created an opposition alliance that now presents a true threat against our waning power.
Excellent presentation. Fine scholarship and delivery. Interesting, important topic. Thank you. It is hard to contemplate the consensus necessary to enable Germany's depredations in WWII..............and our capacity for the same. We'd rather not acknowledge such.
Chuck U. Farley II The only problem Chuck is that this guy is wrong. When he is the accusing the General Staff of doing is exactly what was Hitler guilty of. He has the whole topic ass backwards.
timobrienwells If I'm not mistaken, he point was that Hitler wasn't an outlier on the policies GERMANY and its ARMY followed, but was representative of their views. You assert a denial of his exact point and exonerate the generals as if their role, complicity and execution of the godless policies weren't important. If there is an ass backward here it is you. Hitler acting alone, out of necessity, could only have been a murderer or incidental mass murder, not a propagator of a national policy of aggressive war for territory, enslavement of millions and genocide of still more millions. That took more than one man to do. The takeaway you should get is that your assertion (and presumably belief) that Hitler acted alone and the people in the military should be exonerated as honorable and noble disciplined "order followers" is counter-intuitive. Of course the high command acted to make the genocides, enslavements and territorial theft real.......more than just an evil man's fantasy. In fact, they made it real.
I concede these are well presented, but anyone who has made a cursory study of the war had heard it all before, over and over again, for decades. The stereotype of the Nazi state or the Wehrmacht as especially efficient or well organized has been shattered for 50 years, though as Dr. Megargee notes there are some truths worth bringing back as against the modern stereotype of it as a complete shambles. The same is true of the "Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht"- shattered 50 years, if indeed anyone pushing it in the 40s and 50s entirely believed it at all. And Omer Bartov gave an excellent summation already in the early 90s. It was just useful. We all had a new set of totalitarian mass murderers against which to square off and it was useful to not have to jail every German private or indeed major or staff officer unless we could prove they had committed a specific war crime. Of such things are myths made, but it has its virtues when every private or major or staff officer probably didn't all commit any specific war crimes.
A myth, yes they had more than 600k horses but their logistics depended mainly on trucks and trains... Soviet logistics relied much more on animal transport... That is the main reason in 1941-1942 behind why a German division could expend more ammunition and recover faster than their soviet counterparts
The German High Command or General Staff was most incompetent among the major belligerents of WW2. They were the biggest reason for Germany's defeat bcoz they had no clear vision and goal, they didn't had any strategy to conduct a long term war. Due to this Wehrmacht suffered disastrously, though they negate this on tactical level, but on operational and Strategic level this sheer incompetence of General staff without any realistic war planning paved the way for the disastrous German defeat and enormous casualties.
I am from germany and maybe there is some revionist thing going on here, yet from what i remember from our history lessons that theme "stabbed in the back" was more referring to the treaties of versaile after WWI. I am currently reading Keynes analysis from those treaties and why and how they would have failed. When Hitler came into power it was in a period of hunger, mass unemployment and people complettly demoralized due to the treaties of versaile and the economic pressure it put on germany and by that prolonging the negativ effects onto germany initiated by WWI. If not for that background the Marshal Plan may never have worked or even been thought out in the first place. I do agree though purely from logic, that the whole chain of command is responsible for the actions which lead to attrocities starting from genocide of ethnic groups to carpet bombing london. As would be the case with Abu Ghraib, using Agent Orange in the vietnam war and its effect on the populace and well there was Hiroshima and Nagasaki all that rather in recent history. Going back further we could find more things where a joint responsibility even from the entire nation would need to be carried. Pretty much the same can be said for nearly every nation on earth. Our culture is a thin line over our animalistic instincts and barbarism. Though the scale of industralised inhumanity we germans achieved i hope noone has to witness again.
You need to be aware of the fact that the Western European Allies had very little understanding of how the Germans conceived of their position in Europe relative to Russia, which was the potential monster on its eastern borders, more or less. Roosevelt and the followers of Woodrow Wilson, for a long time, thought that the Communist movement in Russia was something wonderful and something that would lead the world into a better place. The British, OTOH, were largely ignorant of Eastern Europe as evidenced by Chamberlain referring to Czechoslovakia as 'a faraway place of which we know very little." Americans still laugh that German generals could conceive of the notion that the allies might eventually join Germany in its fight for survival against Communism, but in fact, this indeed did ultimately come to be as a reality.
These are very interesting lectures. I imagine they’re giving at war colleges, etc. etc. but, to what avail? Vietnam Korea Afghanistan, Iraq the stupidity of the endless we learn nothing.
No, it wasn’t the stuff of legend. The fact is, the disproportionate casualties the Germans inflicted on their enemies in both World Wars comes down to the conviction and discipline of the average soldier.
OK Germany lost WWII and there were many contributing factors including deficiencies of the High Command; there are many books written and lectures on TH-cam. Why are there so few lectures on TH-cam examining our history in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc and why success evaded us?
I believe it has to be considered that a lot of lapses in judgement on the side of aggressiveness - from Hitler on down to the very foot soldier - can be attributed to the widespread use of stimulant amphetamines such as Pervitin. I believe they must play a role, or they wouldn't be using them in the first place.
How come so many historians ignore that one of the key factors that led to the rise of the nazis and hitler was opportunity. The German army leadership was a highly prestigious and gate kept institution. The nazi party and subsequent paramilitary organizations gave people the opportunity to rise that they wouldn’t have been previously. The established cohort of leadership families did not like these upstarts who performed better than them and had them killed (slipping flight plans to the enemy and watching it go boom). After this they expunged them from the record. Himmler, Manstein, and a few other colonel/general level individuals are what drove the war machine and strategic thought. Also the ones who hitler actually listened to. As these men were murdered, once again the crap rose to the top of the porta potty and Hitler was isolated as he watched these men be murdered and betrayed by the very men seeking to give him advice now. This isn’t even getting into the drug addictions among that crowd post late 1942.
The Ones Who Remember: Second Generation Voices of the Holocaust. As the Holocaust survivors among us become more frail and pass on, we must ensure their stories and legacies continue. We must keep our promises to them. a great-granddaughter of Holocaust survivor - Some of my Dad Fred White's family members died in the Holocaust in Europe
I certainly like these lecturers who portray these *murderous, thieving, lying, stupid followers,* along the lines of what they really were all about and how utterly pathetic their ways and ideas actually were, starting at the top where the most blame should be laid.
All of this adjectives can be assigned to the Soviet regime. Which reminds me: why does he ascribe Nazi views about Jews to the thinking of the High Command unless it was the general view among the elites of every European state?
@@JRobbySh To some degree maybe on the adjectives, but saying every European state held the same view on Jews is not even remotely correct when you consider all the countries the GR killer invaded. Unless they were as stupid as the entire GR nation.
I wonder why people even listen to new research if the main objective is to stay firm in their beliefs. Why don't they just read LIddel Hart and Churchill again? If we never question anything, we are at a mental state before Sokrates.
+aon10003 Sometimes it's BS. Sometimes its conclusions are merely those that they know may get published. Nobody wants to read the 10th book with the same conclusions. There are no more careerist,, non-independent, and political generals today than in the USA.
Amateurs speak of strategy and tactics. Professionals speak of logistics. One can make a fairly good argument that German generals were the best field commanders. But in terms of the essentials, they were amateurs. The Germans couldn't clothe or feed their troops in Russia. The primary form of transport of supplies was with horses. I remember watching a story about the German drive on Stalingrad. I remember one old German soldier talking about how they got some camels!! Fucking camels!!! Allied forces moved by truck. Russian forces moved with American supplied trucks. The Germans were doomed to lose.
+hconnell171 I cannot think of a major war where logistics did not play the critical part. For example, in the American Civil War, one could make a good argument that the confederacy had the most capable field commanders. But the Union army had far better logistics.
+hconnell171 Very true. My point is that with superior logistics, a merely adequate commander will defeat a superior commander. British, Russian, and American commanders were not bad commanders. There were merely not as good as the Germans. Same comparison applies to Union and Confederate commanders. The Germans still lost. The Confederacy still lost.
+hconnell171 Hypothesize, if you will, two opposing soldiers who each have to travel 100 miles to engage each other. The superbly trained soldier needs to walk 100 miles, and arrives exhausted with an empty belly. The merely adequately trained soldier is well fed and is delivered to the engagement point by motorized transport. That metaphor basically sums up the German campaign in both Russia and against the Western Allies. Russian soldiers had American food and American trucks. The Germans lost.
+hconnell171 ..Well, in the case of the Germans, they were not very effective at dodging our hits. Allied intelligence had deeply penetrated the German intelligence apparatus. The British had Ultra. My essential point is, that notwithstanding a very arguable superiority in the quality of German field commanders and in the training of the soldiers, their opponents were superior where it mattered most. In terms of communications, logistics, and intelligence, the Germans were clearly outmatched. Their only real chance at winning the war was in choking off Allied supplies with the U Boat. They very nearly succeeded. But the Royal Navy had Ultra.
+Lawrence Wright Horses have their place - in summer in Europe they're quite useful, as grass is plentiful and they don't require fuel. In harsh conditions and when fodder has to be supplied to them, they lose that utility.
According to these historians, Japan only decided to attack Pearl Harbor if Hitler promised (for what THAT was worth) to declare war on the US, to divide US troops and industry. So Hitler’s promise was a PREREQUISITE for the Japanese attack, not a consequence. All 3 eminent historians on this panel agree, according this fellow. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Weinberg, at a George C. Marshall Foundation lecture. th-cam.com/video/79KU997m9o4/w-d-xo.html. WW2: Myths, Misconceptions, and Surprises
Germany didnt really defeat Russia in WW1..They simply did better in the east than in the west but ultimately the revolution ended the war in the east. Furthermore, they did better because the russian army was a complete mess in WW1. Russia pre 1917 was VERY different than pre 1941.
Russia, , did loose the war, albeit in a somewhat unusual set of circumstance . The formal documentation in my support rests in the s surrender is the peace treaty of Brest Litovsj. here is the link":: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
Well that conflates a little. Of course the revolution is one (amidst) other a reason but not end of the war. The revolution didn't effectively end war as Lenin still had to sign a surrender, which he did as the situation did not leave any other option. By the same token as the German command lead the war until there was no other option left and turned the responsibility over to Parliament (which at stage was nothing more than an advisory board for the emporer) for them to sign a surrender.
D germany wasn't really defeated in ww1. That's true. In ww2 allies occupied Germany . At 9 may 1945 Germany cease to exists. De facto even today german territory is still occupied by Americans
Some of my Dad Fred White's family members died in the Holocaust. My Dad, Fred White was born on April 23, 1917, and he was in the NAVY during World War 2. There are exhibits at some of the museums for documents that are kept on file for family members of people who died in the Holocaust. There is also a genealogy research library at some of the Jewish centers. My Dad, Fred White's gravesite is located at Beth David Cemetery in Elmont, New York in Long Island.
I take a few moments this night as I pause and listen to my dog outside barking up a storm … actually now she is hitting( I call it knocking) on the door and wanting back in the house… oh the freedoms we all have to enjoy every day…because of many such people as your father …we all owe a great deal of gratitude …so tonight I recognize your father… I thank him for his service to our country and for his answering the call of duty when it was most needed
Look at Afghanistan: there were no one to stab the military in the back this time. This time they knew better, everyone claimed that they supported the soldier even if they didn't support the war. And what happened? More spectacular failure. The naysayer were not traitors, they were there to prevent you from making the gravest mistakes.
I have watched and read a lot of War Staff College "Experts'" videos and treatises analyzing one aspect or the other of the German military command failings in WWII and they all have the underlying assumption that the general high regard the German military was held in is mostly a myth with little basis in fact. Their treatise then goes on in extreme minutiae to define their view of why. All I have read/watched have merit but what I think almost all fail to recognize/properly weigh and state up front in their analysis is that by 1944/1945 America had more manufacturing capacity then the rest of the world combined and the war outcome was a fait accompli...both the Germans and the Japanese were getting ground down by superior numbers and superior weapons platforms (not to mention on top of that we still had the national resources to build the bomb). The fact that the German military held out as long as they did and fought as well as they did, with almost no fuel and very little capability to replace damaged/lost equipment or men is a testament to their command and control that still presented the Allies with difficult battles right up until April of '45. Yes we kicked their asses, but very little had to do with the German military or Japan military failings but rather we just out manufactured them and out resourced them. Of course it certainly didn't help the German cause that their other front was against the 2nd largest manufacturing country in the world, albeit far behind America's (a U.S. Marine vet. and Ph.D. Engineer who works for a large American defense contractor's Missile Systems company.
No one is saying their military lacked any merit whatsoever. But the very act that this military embroiled itself in a war against the USA while still in a conflict with the USSR and the British Empire is the biggest failing of all. Their lack of fuel and inability to replace their lost equipment was not inevitable or unsolvable either, but also came from their enormously consequential failings with regard to logistics and grand strategy. Finally, the desperate and even fanatical fight they put up in 44 and 45 is also arguably not a point of praise, since it resulted in wholly unnecessary destruction and death. I've seen something like how the Germans lost more KIAs after July 22 44, or even in 45 alone, than it did in the whole rest of the war. It accomplished NOTHING - if the generals had overthrown Hitler or convinced him to sue for peace, the political end result would likely have resembled May 1945. Yes the Russians would have committed their violations against women, and there would have been the civilian losses associated with the expulsions from the eastern territories, but that was what Germany got ANYWAY, and surrenderig sooner would have caused far fewer military deaths, fewer civilians killed and resources ruined by Allied bombing, etc.
Balanced view. On three occasions they were able to tie us up in knots for extended periods of time despite their scarcity of men and material. Patton’s dash across France was the only time I can see that we compared favorably with the Germans. That was like 1940 in reverse.
It is amazing how people think the US was so powerful at the start of WW2. The US wasn't that powerful, nor did it prove itself well in WW1. Apart from the US navy, the Germans really did not have much to fear of the US in 1941, militarily speaking. As far as industrially, the U-boat war would have limited that if successful from the German point of view. To many think of the US in 1941 as being as powerful as it is now or in 1945.
Eh, the US might not have had the same military power at the start of the war as it had towards the end but it had the same industrial capacity and that's what should have worried anyone. For the Germans to think that their submarines would be able to neutralize it is incredibly arrogant and a sign of incompetence.
@@hedgehog3180 They knew that a hand full of submarines could not neutralize the US but with convoy defenses or lack of on the US east coast it was a weakness so they exploited it. Germany declared war on the US more in support of Japan. That said at the time they were running pretty high on their own successes so likely thought USSR could be defeated then Britain then terms could be made with the US.
@@tashahatzidakis5680 True enough...but US was isolationist only in regards to Europe. They were more then willing to get involved in conflicts outside of Europe. Nothing ends depressions better then a nice war and they were even considering invading Canada to help end the depression.
Why do these experts vary so much on Germany's War , For all the dysfunction , economic , Oil gas and so many other material shortages ( and no real Navy) along with the diversion to Nazi efforts to genocide and allies that were duplicative and a hinderance ,most say Germany came extremely close to winning the War? Its scary to think what could have happened. A lot of scholars say the genocide would not have happened and really began when the possibility of losing the War ( during the Wansee Conference). I worked with a Man from Berlin who was ordered into the Hitler youth but the War ended, He said after the defeat of France even the public that considered themselves Nazi's didnt want more War ,
He hear nuting, see nuting! He couldn't go to the eastern front because of his back, his neck and his heart. "A bullet in any one of those places could be fataaaaaal!"
Imagine if they were not so dysfunctional , neglectful and no nazi ideologues making crucial decisions , and really without a Navy and no intelligence Service??? its so stunning and really unbelievable what they are able to do
Fritz Halder got to edit the USARMY History of ww2 in Europe, and we've been dealing with the consequences ever since. History isn't written by the victors, it's written by the survivors.
If the Germans had treated the local population well, they would have fought on their side. The Ukrainians, the Tatars, those from the Caucasus, and even the Russians did not care about the criminal regime in Moscow, even initially they welcomed them as liberators. The Germans' mistake was that they treated them worse than the communist regime. And Caesar after conquering Gaul and Alexander Macedon understood that they cannot conquer the world if you treat the conquered populations with cruelty, because that will make the resistance against you great and your losses great.
The Germans' CRIME was their GENOCIDAL CONDUCT OF THE WAR. They fought to the end because the command and the foot soldiers KNEW THEY WERE GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!
The General Staff did study and develop logistics and intelligence plans and reports. Hitler, a military dictator, considered the analysis when it suited his initiatives and ignored the analysis and recommendations when it didn’t. Further, he rewarded those staff who agreed with him and admonished or punished his subordinates when they didn’t. This created a culture of compliance in supporting Hitler’s initiatives even when they didn’t fully agree. They acted purely out of career or personal survival. Numerous examples of this occurring . This is what happens in a Dictatorship when a strong-willed leader surrounds himself with cronies who subscribe and support his initiatives. Different circumstances apply but Vladimir Putin has fallen victim to the same culture compliance issues in starting the Ukraine war.
Japan would not attack Pearl Harbor without Hitler's commitment to declare war on the US immediately after the attack. Hitler gave that commitment and is why he declared war on the US when he did.
@@tashahatzidakis5680 Correct. The point being Japan was not prepared to attack PH without German assurance they would declare war on the US right afterward.
The Lecture could happen that way because we lost the war after all. And we lost the War because we both attacked the Soviet Union and USA. That was the reason we lost. Thats being said - an Army that steamrolls basicly whole Europe is not led by Idiots or untalented Guys. The bold statements in this talk is only possible because there are no counter voices sicne we lost the war. History is writen by the Winer , right?! If we for seome reason would not atack Soviet Union and would not draw USA in the fight but consolidate what was conquered - this lecture about seemingly unefficient German High Command would not happen.
Yeah, most of these these American military historians are okay (with the obvious exception of the far-right lunatics from Hillsdale), as are their analyses, but Richard Evans, David Glantz and the young German historians like Sönke Neitzel leave them all far, far behind. Check out Soldaten and Deutsche Krieger from Neitzel (now available in English) if you want to know the real depths of WWII European Theater history.
Wonderful lecture with a weakness. The National Socialists knew that Germany always had to gamble economically and militarily at risk. Even during the war against France there could be no plan b. In the war against France the risk paid off. The bet against the Soviet Union could also have worked. At this point the Wehrmacht leadership was already deeply involved in crimes. A lost war was fought for another four years.
I feel like the audience didn't fully absorb the majority of the talk - from the questions, it seems like the Wehrmacht myths still were dominant in their minds.
A rather good Q & A section after the lecture. Usually these lectures end and there is no time for questions. The questions afterwards and answers provided are as good or better than the lecture itself.
They all drank the cool aid
No they weren't lmfao literally all of them were asking the same 🗑 he already debunked
The Germans went into the USSR apparently expecting that its industrial capacity and population hadn't changed in 20 or so years. And then wondered why they failed.
They had been bogged down from a revolution and the after effects from it. Usually that's nothing to slouch at....
...I mean they were hurting from WW1 already, then went straight to civil war after that....
@@ChadDidNothingWrong To be fair, they likely considered pre-WW1 to be their last reliable datapoint.
@@evanhunt1863 Guderian, and other Reichswehr officers trained in the Soviet Union, because Germany was not permitted to have tanks per the Versailles treaty. That would have given them some data, but doesn't seem to have been exploited.
@@DonMeaker I was more referring to the SU's population numbers and industrial capacity. But you're right, that should've given them something.
I liked the speaker’s mention of the US reaction after not winning in Vietnam to show that the Germans weren’t unique in blaming civilians for a military loss.
I thought the Allies defeated the Germans in WW2. US, Soviet Union, Great Britain and her commonwealths and dominions. All helped one and another, and stayed united thru the cause.
Yes, and 90% of the fighting and dying occurred in the soviet union.
So scary how such a small segment of humanity can cause so much hell
I question whether Germany has any humanity..?
1 mio dead Irakis say what?
had they concentrated on building flying saucers everything would have been just fine
Or if they had done better research on how to operate the Ark of the Covenant.
Yah you are correct sir. I did not know that LOL.
A brilliant examination of an issue so clumsily analysed for so long!
Thank you very much for posting it.
I haven't watched it yet, but that description gets me a bit excited
How much did the consumption of drugs by many soldiers in the German army during World War II affected outcomes of battles or the overall outcome of World War II?
From 1939 to 1945, the Third Reich astonished Europe with its Blitzkrieg on all battlefronts. Its military efficiency has since then been a leitmotiv of history studies. This has been traditionally attributed to its technological superiority and optimisation, as well as its innovative strategies. Indeed, everything was accurately calculated, from the weight of the firearms to the offensive timings. The Wehrmacht would not leave anything to chance. However, there is one more trick to consider: performance-enhancing drugs
1 hour and no mention of Col. Klink.
inmhstn He went awol tracking Shultz out on a strudel rampage.
inmhstn Dude, that was a good one!
+inmhstn Especially since that in the one episode, Klink was put in as Chief of Staff because he was so incompetent.
Thats awesome, its hilarious.
ol clink had the last laugh...."such a boy"
First, your lectures are great. As an old student of military history from the Swedish Military College I appreciate your take on things. However, the quality of the video and audio are sadly not up to the quality of the talks. Maybe if you had slightly better quality (say 480p) you would have more traffic to your videos.
Thank you!
Seriously, if you as a Swede don't see the colossal mistakes in this lecture, then god help you.
@@etwas013 perhaps you could have pointed those out to non-Swedes as we weren't all so lucky to be born a Swede
@@etwas013 Oh please, do point out the errors so that we, the great unwashed, may all benefit from your omnipotence.
@@thethirdman225 @Mark Willies Ok.
Mr. Megargee blames German general staff for Hitler's politics.
He misunderstands the concept of the "will" in command. He thinks it is stubbornness or ego contest.
He understands the command principles as a set of rigid rules.
He proves the incompetence of the general staff with mutually exclusive proofs - officers disrespected the chain of command but disrespected too little when they disagreed.
He believes the chain of command was faulty because the did not properly identify the basic principles of German command.
He mixes military and non-military subjects, such as diplomacy and binds military and foreign intelligence into one group, they should not be. Military officers can be advisors but not decision makers in diplomacy and here is where Hitler failed.
He claims that German logistics were bad based on the amount of officers assigned. He assumes US officers were as good as German.
There are only a few specific military areas where German logistics failed, but the usual blame goes to the civilian government that failed to mobilise the economy in time. There is also no proof that German logistics were worse than Allied, they were likely better, considering the longer distances German army was capable of and the fact that it was largely horse driven, whereas WAllied armies were all motorised.
German military intelligence was no worse than Allied. As Germans, so did all WAllies expect easy German victory against the Soviets. The principal advantage of WAllied intelligence against Germans was entirely based in civilian skill of Polish and British cryptographers.
There is literally only one single major mistake in German strategic thinking, the conviction of being able to defeat the USSR in one season. Everything else depended on this. All Allied efforts were only successful because they could bind 70% of German army in Russia and Soviets survived only because the UK and USA upheld the production of entire sectors of industry in the crucial year of 1942. Mr. Megargee's entire assumptions on the proper conduct of military operations are based on misunderstanding this event. Germans never planned to conquer entire Russia. They didn't make wrong logistic plans, they misunderstood the potential of communism and the people's will to fight. In military terms they achieved the planned - the destruction of the Soviet army in Europe. But there were 100 more divisions ready before the campaign could continue. That is the mistake he should be focusing on.
What is ironic in all of this is that the US army of ww2 had a much more sober opinion on the events and flatly admitted that only tremendous number disparity were able to stop Germans. This was also the base of post war US doctrines. Just bring more weapons to the fight than the opponent.
I don't get the whole Swede-specific part making it so egregious thing.
I enjoyed this talk very much and I learned a great deal, thank you.
I’m looking forward to "Not the Stuff of Legend: The American High Command in Vietnam and Afghanistan”
probably won't be in english
The dude who wrote Westmoreland's War did a pretty good lecture on command failings in Vietnam. Honestly, it's pretty easy to find a few Vietnam lectures on this channel, and some other channels have the Afghanistan ones you want.
If you want this specific lecture, do it yourself! There's plenty of sources to pull from and plenty of lectures to watch to get all the pieces of the picture, and I'd genuinely love to see your lecture on it!
Read "the Afghanistan papers"
No, only the Germans are bad
Even a top-notch OKW would not have saved Germany. Failure to get the oil for its economy and the fact that it was very centralized led to crippling shortages across the board. Without a working economy, collapse was inevitable. Very similar story for Japan in fact.
40:45 -- "They weren't concerned about the United States." Their memories must have failed them: it was the entry of the U.S. into WW1 that doomed Germany to defeat.
In anticipation of the arrival of U.S. forces, Germany launched the 1918 Spring Offensive -- which failed. Once enough U.S. troops had landed in France, the Western Allies went on the offensive and quickly defeated an exhausted Germany. How could they have forgotten that?
Kevin Byrne Perhaps they simply did. The US military had fewer troops than Bulgaria if I remember in the 1930s. The buildup still took years for a 1944 landing.
Our role in 1918 was limited. The French and British did the heavy lifting because our troops were too inexperienced. We did add our weight, counterbalancing the transfer of German troops from east to west in the Spring.
@@JRobbySh -- As I said, Germany could have tried to hold their positions in the West and fight a defensive war. However, Germany decided to launch a desperate, last ditch offensive -- because they could see the troopships pouring Americans into France. The German offensive failed and German resistance crumbled. I'm not diminishing the roles of the British or the French, but the prospect of fighting all of those Americans drove the Germans to desperation.
@@kevinbyrne4538 I don't know, due to the limited American role in WW1 I think they might have thought that Americans would be just some yokels relying on British experience and supporting the Brits. The US did not have a huge experience with wars in Europe at the time, even in WW1 the role was very limited. There was not much of an experience with big wars for the US since the Civil War too, and that was almost a 100 years before WW2, so despite all the economic might of USA they might have believed that US would lack will to fight abroad, in Europe, for whatever reason and thought Americans to be more like businessmen and ''I want deal" people than warriors.
In a way there were correct as in 30s US didn't really have a massive army and by late 1941 American tech for fighting the war was worse compared to what the Reich had. It took time to build up. The fact is, Europe had been gearing for war for some years already, US had not. When we look at it through today's prism it might seem strange how they didn't see it to be a huge problem, but at the time USA was still kinda on par or even behind British Empire and Nazi Germany in tech, or when it comes to military tech it was certainly behind as those countries had already prepared for war for a few years and in war technologies develop rapidly, like tanks and the use of them from 1939 to late 1941. Or planes. USA could build a lot of trucks and ships though and was an economic powerhouse but it could be uncertain how interested they would be to commit huge armed forces to Europe when they also had to fight Japan and how effective these soldiers would be, since Germans knew that they had been prepped culturally for war for years while Americans... maybe they thought they would be French-like
It wasn't just U.S. forces but that did contribute to the collapse. We need to remember that Germany was fighting on two fronts with limited resources. In fact the reason Germany was the aggressor in WWI is that when it had developed economically most of the world had already been divided up among other empires so the only way it could get its "place in the Sun" would be to fight them for one.
The British Empire did not have this issue. As Winston Churchill admitted in a moment of candour during the 1913-14 debate over naval estimates: “We have got all we want in territory, and our claim to be left in unmolested enjoyment of vast and splendid possessions, mainly acquired by violence, largely maintained by force, often seems less reasonable to others than to us.”
I recommend the following video, even if I disagree with what it says about the significance of the outbreak of revolution in Germany in 1918.
The Ending of World War I: The Road to 11 November
th-cam.com/video/kqJsKRtiBOQ/w-d-xo.html
He says at 7:02 "I would say that fundamentally without American entry the best that the Allied side could have extracted from this war would have been a compromise and a compromise that was probably unfavorable. So the fact that the Allies achieve a victory, even if it's a limited victory, in 1918 American contribution is vital to that. But the American contribution is very slow to take full effect and during 1917 America's entry into the war is counteracted by a series of other things Russian Revolution mutiny in the French army Britain near to bankruptcy..."
Many Americans believe the US defeated Nazi Germany and are unaware of the destruction of the Wehrmacht by the Red Army. This is shown by the number of German soldiers killed by the Red Army on the Eastern front is estimated at 2,742,909. Those killed by all other Allies is estimated at 534,683 and only began ground fighting 10 months before the Germans surrendered. The supplying of trucks, food and aircraft which greatly helped the Soviet army.
I am American and always knew who suffered the most (Russians) and who inflicted the most damage to the Germans,again Russians,clearly the U.S. gave up the least and gained the most. this is not a knock on my country just facts
Rog volley There are few who agree with us. So let us not tire of correcting Hollywood, it takes nothing away from the brave Western Allies who fought Nazis from D-Day to the German surrender. If you have not seen Remember the Russians on D-Day, it is worth reading. AT: asiansecurityblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/remember-the-russians-on-d-day/
+theoldprof Well Americans did win the war for the Allies. Deaths really mean nothing, since anyone can send people to die, before we go further I would just like to add your number is total dead in the Eastern front, not killed by Red Army, if your going by Overmans statistics that is. His total statistics for killed in action is 2,303,320. For all fronts. For all fronts since I feel you need to read this twice. So either find a number that better suits your needs of whatever propaganda your trying to spread, or admit your own failure to read into details. Overmans total dead in the German army was 5,318,531, minus the two numbers you said and we have 2,040,939 left unaccounted for. There should only be 1,689,520 as those were prisoners of war, added with final battles in Germany. Change your wording too, since your talking about all other allies only fighting 10 months before Germany surrendered, when that's really bullshit because you had fighting in Africa since June 10th, 1940. Britain was a ally and they fought with the French since the start of the War, and in the Fall of France which started on May 10th, 1940. Poland was a ally to, need I tell you that the USSR and Germany invaded Poland to start this war. All this fighting happening before the USSR was really even in the war. Some further evidence that death means nothing, 321,000-363,000 total casualties on the Soviet side in the Winter War. 70,000 total casualties on the Finnish side of the Winter war. Only two ways to take that. Admit death means nothing and move on to a different talking point. Fight and say Finland won the Winter War. Just to add a point America captured 3 million German prisoners of war, Britain captured 3,600,000 POWs, why the Soviet Union only captured 3 million German prisoners of war, need I mention the Soviet Union killed, worked to death, or starved about a million of those, with America and Britain combined only ending with 12 thousand dead at MAX. With all that outta the way I will finally be able to talk about why it was America that won the war for everyone. America took Japan outta the war. There's not a single major contribution that any other power made in the war with Japan that took place without America. So America took on the country that made this a World War and beat them into submission. America kept Britain in the war. This kept 40 percent of the German Army defending the Western front. There's also all the American and British bombing and crippling of German industry that stopped them from being able to properly equip their armies, get tanks out to fight, or make synthetic fuel. Bombing would also include destroying of almost any German infrastructure to, stopping resources or equipment from being sent anywhere. It was really Americas, and Britain's grasp of logistics that won the war in Europe.
+theoldprof Your point about the Red Army is right but the western allies did not wait until D-Day to fight. Britain and France fought in France until in the fight continued France fell. Then Britain, her Empire and the Free French/Free Poles etc fought in Africa, Greece, Syria, Sicily and Italy, not to mention the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic which arguably was the crucial front of the entire war, since US forces and Lend Lease materiel could never have crossed the ocean if Germany had grabbed control of the sea.
+theoldprof - Do you have a source for this narrative that Americans believe the United States defeated Nazi Germany? I've never read a book or an article that takes that view, and never heard a lecture or speech that makes such a claim. Most Americans who know anything about the war are aware that the Soviet Union did most of the ground fighting in Europe. Hollywood of course, when it does movies about the war, mostly makes them about Americans. Does any other nation's film industry do otherwise?
Excellent lecture. First eye-opener in quite a while, and particularly in the revelation that the army was really hand in hand with the SS in the exploitation and commission of war crimes in the occupied zones.
I am baffled that there people believing the Nazi soldiers were clean. I am hearing this for the first time and apparently this view is wildly shared. I am not sure though were the notion originates from. These people were the armed forces of a Nazi regime. How can they possibly innocent? It is on the same level of somebody claiming the IS soldiers are clean and only the political Part of the IS is at fault.
Professor, thank you. It really gives me pride that I am an U.S. Citizen who had such such an impact on the unbelievable results of my countries involvement in WWII. My father and my uncle risks their lives in achieving that Victory. Unfortunately, what I see today gives me pause in whether our descendants understand what was sacrifices for their prosperity and honor, not to mention the benefits to mankind. There is obviously a higher power involved, and this is from someone who has advance degrees in both technology and and Business.
I do take exception to you off-comment about Vietnam however - but we are all human.
Do u enjoy (((their))) precious liberal democracy? Or u haven't had enough degeneracy yet? Your father fought for the banksters and the deep state of the paedophiles. Your state was/is the enemy, nor another country at the other side of an ocean, trying to liberate it's self from the slavery of debt and (((their))) grip.
@@theinvisibleman2070 Oh well, so I flunked English comp, but I still know how to vote
@@theinvisibleman2070 Actually I did - but in 5th grade I had a 9th grade math level
Why do you need to brag about your degrees in your rambling incoherent comment? You have very poor grammar for a US Citizen with multiple "advanced degrees" and you seem highly delusional and mentally unstable.
Most excellent, thanks for the presentation and the video.
The Army's trying to get a hold of me
I never ever had any representation of the German General Staff as "anti-nazi" !
Unless grossly misinformed, i don't know anybody who could havé.
Do not forget some staff was a nazi only on paper because they had to.
operation valkyrie
@@alexm566 Valkyrie was conducted by colonels. The general staff was still completely loyal to Hitler. It was really only a small pool of officers that saw through the BS.
@@Humorless_Wokescold I am sure they were all smart enough to see through the BS, just like the current Russian generals, but they're in too deep to do anything about it.
@@alexm566 ok that I agree with. Hell, I bet German generals hung on for a lot of the same reasons Russian generals are. There's a lot of money in being a high ranking military commander in a corrupt nation.
58:50 i've heard there were clashes between the heer and the ss over who would get resources and manpower
Good answer around the 44 minute mark on why Hitler declared war on the US. A couple of additional comments. 11 December had been planned for months--U-boats were positioned off the Atlantic Seaboard, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean. This had to have been planned months before for them to all start on 11 December.
I was being sarcastic with my first sentence, which unfortunately doesn't show up well. I was making the statement that the German declaration of war on the US was not something decided on after Japan attacked the US--indeed that idea was ridiculous. There clearly had been months preparing for this offensive against the US (particularly against US coastal trade). The US military budget was substantially higher for the fiscal year beginning in July 1941 than in any of the years prior--it had effectively doubled over 1940/41. US naval forces were becoming substantially more active and there had been a "phony peace" for five months in the Atlantic. Yes, Lead-Lease was part of the issue. Germany was facing an increasingly active USN that threatened Germany's only hope to defeat Britain--cutting off its trade. It took time to prepare for this offensive. It didn't just happen over night.
They even used short range as well as U-boots in the operation. All got away scot free after inflicting heavy losses on shipping. The German Navy did well despite been short-sheeted in war production. Raeder quit for that reason. Never figured why he got hit for war crimes.
"Our defeated enemies were totally incompetent, but also this was our greatest victory."
Look how weak Russia looks in 2023...it probably looked comparably weak in 1941...Germans use to taking over what were basically city states in Europe as well. It gets really really big as you live east and there are a ton of people out there.
I don’t think that Iran is two weeks away from having “the bomb” but they are close to having perhaps enough fissionable uranium to envision how to deploy something with help from the Russians. The Iranians do have some unproven missile systems that are allegedly capable of reaching our carriers and putting them effectively out of service for months. There was no acceptable reason to create enmity with Russia. There was possibly more reason to be hostile toward Iran, but our little general staff (Blinken and Sullivan - a two-headed exercise in incompetence unlike Germany’s von Hindenburg and Ludendorff who were competent but lacking the firepower and manpower to fulfill their plans) has created an opposition alliance that now presents a true threat against our waning power.
Excellent, just excellent. Bravo.
What book does he say to read at 43:50, listened 3 times and can’t make it out enough to find it on Google !
Why don't they check the sound????👿👿👿👿
Warlimonts book covers this. Half dry half fascinating.
Excellent presentation. Fine scholarship and delivery. Interesting, important topic. Thank you.
It is hard to contemplate the consensus necessary to enable Germany's depredations in WWII..............and our capacity for the same. We'd rather not acknowledge such.
Chuck U. Farley II The only problem Chuck is that this guy is wrong. When he is the accusing the General Staff of doing is exactly what was Hitler guilty of. He has the whole topic ass backwards.
timobrienwells If I'm not mistaken, he point was that Hitler wasn't an outlier on the policies GERMANY and its ARMY followed, but was representative of their views. You assert a denial of his exact point and exonerate the generals as if their role, complicity and execution of the godless policies weren't important.
If there is an ass backward here it is you. Hitler acting alone, out of necessity, could only have been a murderer or incidental mass murder, not a propagator of a national policy of aggressive war for territory, enslavement of millions and genocide of still more millions. That took more than one man to do.
The takeaway you should get is that your assertion (and presumably belief) that Hitler acted alone and the people in the military should be exonerated as honorable and noble disciplined "order followers" is counter-intuitive. Of course the high command acted to make the genocides, enslavements and territorial theft real.......more than just an evil man's fantasy. In fact, they made it real.
We ....who is "we"....bend over....an isis fan needs a chai boy.
I concede these are well presented, but anyone who has made a cursory study of the war had heard it all before, over and over again, for decades. The stereotype of the Nazi state or the Wehrmacht as especially efficient or well organized has been shattered for 50 years, though as Dr. Megargee notes there are some truths worth bringing back as against the modern stereotype of it as a complete shambles. The same is true of the "Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht"- shattered 50 years, if indeed anyone pushing it in the 40s and 50s entirely believed it at all. And Omer Bartov gave an excellent summation already in the early 90s.
It was just useful. We all had a new set of totalitarian mass murderers against which to square off and it was useful to not have to jail every German private or indeed major or staff officer unless we could prove they had committed a specific war crime. Of such things are myths made, but it has its virtues when every private or major or staff officer probably didn't all commit any specific war crimes.
Germany invaded the Soviet Union with a logistical system that relied on horses. Totally bonkers.
A myth, yes they had more than 600k horses but their logistics depended mainly on trucks and trains... Soviet logistics relied much more on animal transport... That is the main reason in 1941-1942 behind why a German division could expend more ammunition and recover faster than their soviet counterparts
The German High Command or General Staff was most incompetent among the major belligerents of WW2. They were the biggest reason for Germany's defeat bcoz they had no clear vision and goal, they didn't had any strategy to conduct a long term war. Due to this Wehrmacht suffered disastrously, though they negate this on tactical level, but on operational and Strategic level this sheer incompetence of General staff without any realistic war planning paved the way for the disastrous German defeat and enormous casualties.
I am from germany and maybe there is some revionist thing going on here, yet from what i remember from our history lessons that theme "stabbed in the back" was more referring to the treaties of versaile after WWI. I am currently reading Keynes analysis from those treaties and why and how they would have failed. When Hitler came into power it was in a period of hunger, mass unemployment and people complettly demoralized due to the treaties of versaile and the economic pressure it put on germany and by that prolonging the negativ effects onto germany initiated by WWI. If not for that background the Marshal Plan may never have worked or even been thought out in the first place.
I do agree though purely from logic, that the whole chain of command is responsible for the actions which lead to attrocities starting from genocide of ethnic groups to carpet bombing london. As would be the case with Abu Ghraib, using Agent Orange in the vietnam war and its effect on the populace and well there was Hiroshima and Nagasaki all that rather in recent history. Going back further we could find more things where a joint responsibility even from the entire nation would need to be carried. Pretty much the same can be said for nearly every nation on earth. Our culture is a thin line over our animalistic instincts and barbarism. Though the scale of industralised inhumanity we germans achieved i hope noone has to witness again.
You need to be aware of the fact that the Western European Allies had very little understanding of how the Germans conceived of their position in Europe relative to Russia, which was the potential monster on its eastern borders, more or less. Roosevelt and the followers of Woodrow Wilson, for a long time, thought that the Communist movement in Russia was something wonderful and something that would lead the world into a better place. The British, OTOH, were largely ignorant of Eastern Europe as evidenced by Chamberlain referring to Czechoslovakia as 'a faraway place of which we know very little." Americans still laugh that German generals could conceive of the notion that the allies might eventually join Germany in its fight for survival against Communism, but in fact, this indeed did ultimately come to be as a reality.
Another German apologist? Please, do stop.
These are very interesting lectures. I imagine they’re giving at war colleges, etc. etc. but, to what avail? Vietnam Korea Afghanistan, Iraq the stupidity of the endless we learn nothing.
In its pursuit of glory the German High Command was vainglorious.
Very interesting talk. Thanks for sharing.
generalfeldmarschall-command hauptfüher matthew floyd marston romanov windsor 2
No, it wasn’t the stuff of legend. The fact is, the disproportionate casualties the Germans inflicted on their enemies in both World Wars comes down to the conviction and discipline of the average soldier.
Interesting stuff, thanks … however - if you close your eyes - every now and then, Dr Megargee sounds eerily like Dan Aykroyd ;)
OK Germany lost WWII and there were many contributing factors including deficiencies of the High Command; there are many books written and lectures on TH-cam. Why are there so few lectures on TH-cam examining our history in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc and why success evaded us?
I believe it has to be considered that a lot of lapses in judgement on the side of aggressiveness - from Hitler on down to the very foot soldier - can be attributed to the widespread use of stimulant amphetamines such as Pervitin.
I believe they must play a role, or they wouldn't be using them in the first place.
I'd say about 30%.
Why does every ww2 lecture have worst audio possible
The audio is pretty bad.
Because it an old video cassette tape, 20-30 year old technology
Would Russia have survived without the material help from the allies ?
The ALLIES won the war, and that includes Communist Russia.
NOBODY did it by themselves.
These lectures never have good audio, thats the 13th law of physics 😅
Great lecture broski.
How come so many historians ignore that one of the key factors that led to the rise of the nazis and hitler was opportunity. The German army leadership was a highly prestigious and gate kept institution. The nazi party and subsequent paramilitary organizations gave people the opportunity to rise that they wouldn’t have been previously.
The established cohort of leadership families did not like these upstarts who performed better than them and had them killed (slipping flight plans to the enemy and watching it go boom). After this they expunged them from the record. Himmler, Manstein, and a few other colonel/general level individuals are what drove the war machine and strategic thought. Also the ones who hitler actually listened to. As these men were murdered, once again the crap rose to the top of the porta potty and Hitler was isolated as he watched these men be murdered and betrayed by the very men seeking to give him advice now.
This isn’t even getting into the drug addictions among that crowd post late 1942.
Poor quality audio.
Why?
the talk starts about 10 minutes in I think. But the audio is still poor so...
It's video recording by cassette type from the storage room that's keeping the 80's items. All money went to Iraq.
Interesting talk
Wonderful talk. So helpful. Thank you. RS Canada
He said, "truth to power" in his opening remarks. As a non-liberal, what does that even mean???
The Ones Who Remember: Second Generation Voices of the Holocaust.
As the Holocaust survivors among us become more frail and pass on, we must ensure their stories and legacies continue. We must keep our promises to them.
a great-granddaughter of Holocaust survivor - Some of my Dad Fred White's family members died in the Holocaust in Europe
The what?
I certainly like these lecturers who portray these *murderous, thieving, lying, stupid followers,* along the lines of what they really were all about and how utterly pathetic their ways and ideas actually were, starting at the top where the most blame should be laid.
All of this adjectives can be assigned to the Soviet regime. Which reminds me: why does he ascribe Nazi views about Jews to the thinking of the High Command unless it was the general view among the elites of every European state?
@@JRobbySh To some degree maybe on the adjectives, but saying every European state held the same view on Jews is not even remotely correct when you consider all the countries the GR killer invaded. Unless they were as stupid as the entire GR nation.
@@JRobbyShjust a guess but he's using the phrase "NAZI views" cause he's talking about NAZIS. Quite both "sidesing" the NAZIs.
I wonder why people even listen to new research if the main objective is to stay firm in their beliefs. Why don't they just read LIddel Hart and Churchill again? If we never question anything, we are at a mental state before Sokrates.
+aon10003 Sometimes it's BS. Sometimes its conclusions are merely those that they know may get published. Nobody wants to read the 10th book with the same conclusions. There are no more careerist,, non-independent, and political generals today than in the USA.
240p upload??? You guys must really be on a tight budget and still using AOL dial-up 14.4 modems on copper phone lines.
Amateurs speak of strategy and tactics. Professionals speak of logistics. One can make a fairly good argument that German generals were the best field commanders. But in terms of the essentials, they were amateurs. The Germans couldn't clothe or feed their troops in Russia. The primary form of transport of supplies was with horses. I remember watching a story about the German drive on Stalingrad. I remember one old German soldier talking about how they got some camels!! Fucking camels!!!
Allied forces moved by truck. Russian forces moved with American supplied trucks. The Germans were doomed to lose.
+hconnell171 I cannot think of a major war where logistics did not play the critical part. For example, in the American Civil War, one could make a good argument that the confederacy had the most capable field commanders. But the Union army had far better logistics.
+hconnell171 Very true. My point is that with superior logistics, a merely adequate commander will defeat a superior commander. British, Russian, and American commanders were not bad commanders. There were merely not as good as the Germans. Same comparison applies to Union and Confederate commanders. The Germans still lost. The Confederacy still lost.
+hconnell171 Hypothesize, if you will, two opposing soldiers who each have to travel 100 miles to engage each other. The superbly trained soldier needs to walk 100 miles, and arrives exhausted with an empty belly. The merely adequately trained soldier is well fed and is delivered to the engagement point by motorized transport. That metaphor basically sums up the German campaign in both Russia and against the Western Allies. Russian soldiers had American food and American trucks. The Germans lost.
+hconnell171 ..Well, in the case of the Germans, they were not very effective at dodging our hits. Allied intelligence had deeply penetrated the German intelligence apparatus. The British had Ultra.
My essential point is, that notwithstanding a very arguable superiority in the quality of German field commanders and in the training of the soldiers, their opponents were superior where it mattered most. In terms of communications, logistics, and intelligence, the Germans were clearly outmatched.
Their only real chance at winning the war was in choking off Allied supplies with the U Boat. They very nearly succeeded. But the Royal Navy had Ultra.
+Lawrence Wright Horses have their place - in summer in Europe they're quite useful, as grass is plentiful and they don't require fuel. In harsh conditions and when fodder has to be supplied to them, they lose that utility.
28:45, thirteen weeks they said, with two week break in-between they said lololoolol
RIP Dr Megargee.
So sad, he died pretty young
@@OceanHedgehog 💉
Williams Ruth Thompson Steven Lewis Richard
blurry
According to these historians, Japan only decided to attack Pearl Harbor if Hitler promised (for what THAT was worth) to declare war on the US, to divide US troops and industry. So Hitler’s promise was a PREREQUISITE for the Japanese attack, not a consequence. All 3 eminent historians on this panel agree, according this fellow. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Weinberg, at a George C. Marshall Foundation lecture. th-cam.com/video/79KU997m9o4/w-d-xo.html. WW2: Myths, Misconceptions, and Surprises
Boy that "lost the war in Vietnam" slip was really Freudian.
I don’t think it was accidental. He was correct.
But the US did lose the war in Vietnam.
Germany didnt really defeat Russia in WW1..They simply did better in the east than in the west but ultimately the revolution ended the war in the east. Furthermore, they did better because the russian army was a complete mess in WW1. Russia pre 1917 was VERY different than pre 1941.
germany had a secret weapon which they fired at russia along a train line....Lennin.
Russia, , did loose the war, albeit in a somewhat unusual set of circumstance . The formal documentation in my support rests in the s surrender is the peace treaty of Brest Litovsj. here is the link"::
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Brest-Litovsk
Well that conflates a little. Of course the revolution is one (amidst) other a reason but not end of the war. The revolution didn't effectively end war as Lenin still had to sign a surrender, which he did as the situation did not leave any other option.
By the same token as the German command lead the war until there was no other option left and turned the responsibility over to Parliament (which at stage was nothing more than an advisory board for the emporer) for them to sign a surrender.
D
germany wasn't really defeated in ww1. That's true.
In ww2 allies occupied Germany . At 9 may 1945 Germany cease to exists. De facto even today german territory is still occupied by Americans
just like to point out that your post has several contradictions...
Some of my Dad Fred White's family members died in the Holocaust. My Dad, Fred White was born on April 23, 1917, and he was in the NAVY during World War 2. There are exhibits at some of the museums for documents that are kept on file for family members of people who died in the Holocaust. There is also a genealogy research library at some of the Jewish centers.
My Dad, Fred White's gravesite is located at Beth David Cemetery in Elmont, New York in Long Island.
I take a few moments this night as I pause and listen to my dog outside barking up a storm … actually now she is hitting( I call it knocking) on the door and wanting back in the house… oh the freedoms we all have to enjoy every day…because of many such people as your father …we all owe a great deal of gratitude …so tonight I recognize your father… I thank him for his service to our country and for his answering the call of duty when it was most needed
The what?
Look at Afghanistan: there were no one to stab the military in the back this time. This time they knew better, everyone claimed that they supported the soldier even if they didn't support the war. And what happened? More spectacular failure. The naysayer were not traitors, they were there to prevent you from making the gravest mistakes.
At least this guy can speak properly and not say 'uh' between every damn word and sentence.
I have watched and read a lot of War Staff College "Experts'" videos and treatises analyzing one aspect or the other of the German military command failings in WWII and they all have the underlying assumption that the general high regard the German military was held in is mostly a myth with little basis in fact. Their treatise then goes on in extreme minutiae to define their view of why. All I have read/watched have merit but what I think almost all fail to recognize/properly weigh and state up front in their analysis is that by 1944/1945 America had more manufacturing capacity then the rest of the world combined and the war outcome was a fait accompli...both the Germans and the Japanese were getting ground down by superior numbers and superior weapons platforms (not to mention on top of that we still had the national resources to build the bomb). The fact that the German military held out as long as they did and fought as well as they did, with almost no fuel and very little capability to replace damaged/lost equipment or men is a testament to their command and control that still presented the Allies with difficult battles right up until April of '45. Yes we kicked their asses, but very little had to do with the German military or Japan military failings but rather we just out manufactured them and out resourced them. Of course it certainly didn't help the German cause that their other front was against the 2nd largest manufacturing country in the world, albeit far behind America's (a U.S. Marine vet. and Ph.D. Engineer who works for a large American defense contractor's Missile Systems company.
No one is saying their military lacked any merit whatsoever. But the very act that this military embroiled itself in a war against the USA while still in a conflict with the USSR and the British Empire is the biggest failing of all. Their lack of fuel and inability to replace their lost equipment was not inevitable or unsolvable either, but also came from their enormously consequential failings with regard to logistics and grand strategy. Finally, the desperate and even fanatical fight they put up in 44 and 45 is also arguably not a point of praise, since it resulted in wholly unnecessary destruction and death. I've seen something like how the Germans lost more KIAs after July 22 44, or even in 45 alone, than it did in the whole rest of the war. It accomplished NOTHING - if the generals had overthrown Hitler or convinced him to sue for peace, the political end result would likely have resembled May 1945. Yes the Russians would have committed their violations against women, and there would have been the civilian losses associated with the expulsions from the eastern territories, but that was what Germany got ANYWAY, and surrenderig sooner would have caused far fewer military deaths, fewer civilians killed and resources ruined by Allied bombing, etc.
Balanced view. On three occasions they were able to tie us up in knots for extended periods of time despite their scarcity of men and material. Patton’s dash across France was the only time I can see that we compared favorably with the Germans. That was like 1940 in reverse.
It is amazing how people think the US was so powerful at the start of WW2. The US wasn't that powerful, nor did it prove itself well in WW1. Apart from the US navy, the Germans really did not have much to fear of the US in 1941, militarily speaking. As far as industrially, the U-boat war would have limited that if successful from the German point of view. To many think of the US in 1941 as being as powerful as it is now or in 1945.
Eh, the US might not have had the same military power at the start of the war as it had towards the end but it had the same industrial capacity and that's what should have worried anyone. For the Germans to think that their submarines would be able to neutralize it is incredibly arrogant and a sign of incompetence.
USA were in an era of being an isolationist They didn’t want to be involved in another European war, and the Great Depression was happening
@@hedgehog3180 They knew that a hand full of submarines could not neutralize the US but with convoy defenses or lack of on the US east coast it was a weakness so they exploited it. Germany declared war on the US more in support of Japan. That said at the time they were running pretty high on their own successes so likely thought USSR could be defeated then Britain then terms could be made with the US.
@@tashahatzidakis5680 True enough...but US was isolationist only in regards to Europe. They were more then willing to get involved in conflicts outside of Europe. Nothing ends depressions better then a nice war and they were even considering invading Canada to help end the depression.
it is unbelieveble this level of this discussion. This is really in university? Not in Finnish university i hope.
Please ignore everything from America. This place is a pox upon the Earth.
Why do these experts vary so much on Germany's War , For all the dysfunction , economic , Oil gas and so many other material shortages ( and no real Navy) along with the diversion to Nazi efforts to genocide and allies that were duplicative and a hinderance ,most say Germany came extremely close to winning the War? Its scary to think what could have happened. A lot of scholars say the genocide would not have happened and really began when the possibility of losing the War ( during the Wansee Conference).
I worked with a Man from Berlin who was ordered into the Hitler youth but the War ended, He said after the defeat of France even the public that considered themselves Nazi's didnt want more War ,
And where is the beloved Sargent Shultz in this organization?
eating strudel....vere else.
@@scottleft3672 Vere else? Having it off with Fraulein Hilda!
He hear nuting, see nuting!
He couldn't go to the eastern front
because of his back, his neck and his heart.
"A bullet in any one of those places could be fataaaaaal!"
Martinez William Garcia Robert Robinson Shirley
Imagine if they were not so dysfunctional , neglectful and no nazi ideologues making crucial decisions , and really without a Navy and no intelligence Service??? its so stunning and really unbelievable what they are able to do
this speach describes early years...they only got lucky then....later "total' war enabled an all in.
I know nothing!
Thomas Matthew Wilson Betty Perez Deborah
The German would great at operational and tactical levels. But the high command where strategic idiots.
Fritz Halder got to edit the USARMY History of ww2 in Europe, and we've been dealing with the consequences ever since. History isn't written by the victors, it's written by the survivors.
If the Germans had treated the local population well, they would have fought on their side. The Ukrainians, the Tatars, those from the Caucasus, and even the Russians did not care about the criminal regime in Moscow, even initially they welcomed them as liberators. The Germans' mistake was that they treated them worse than the communist regime. And Caesar after conquering Gaul and Alexander Macedon understood that they cannot conquer the world if you treat the conquered populations with cruelty, because that will make the resistance against you great and your losses great.
The Germans' CRIME was their GENOCIDAL CONDUCT OF THE WAR.
They fought to the end because the command and the foot soldiers KNEW THEY WERE GUILTY, GUILTY, GUILTY!!
The General Staff did study and develop logistics and intelligence plans and reports. Hitler, a military dictator, considered the analysis when it suited his initiatives and ignored the analysis and recommendations when it didn’t. Further, he rewarded those staff who agreed with him and admonished or punished his subordinates when they didn’t. This created a culture of compliance in supporting Hitler’s initiatives even when they didn’t fully agree. They acted purely out of career or personal survival. Numerous examples of this occurring . This is what happens in a Dictatorship when a strong-willed leader surrounds himself with cronies who subscribe and support his initiatives. Different circumstances apply but Vladimir Putin has fallen victim to the same culture compliance issues in starting the Ukraine war.
Jackson Daniel Garcia Jennifer Clark Barbara
Abadisa of this message or any match atacs
Taylor John Garcia Margaret Williams Carol
yes typical germam denial from my grandfather
What about all the lies
oi
The Soviet Army couldn't have been that strong. This is the biggest imposture since Genghis Kahn!
22:18... yeap
Japan would not attack Pearl Harbor without Hitler's commitment to declare war on the US immediately after the attack. Hitler gave that commitment and is why he declared war on the US when he did.
Clearly, he declared war Immediatly upon the sneak attack
@@tashahatzidakis5680 Correct. The point being Japan was not prepared to attack PH without German assurance they would declare war on the US right afterward.
That is not at all true. Japan thought the Pearl Harbour attack would preemptively knock the US out of the war. Germany had nothing to do with it.
The Lecture could happen that way because we lost the war after all. And we lost the War because we both attacked the Soviet Union and USA. That was the reason we lost.
Thats being said - an Army that steamrolls basicly whole Europe is not led by Idiots or untalented Guys. The bold statements in this talk is only possible because there are no counter voices sicne we lost the war.
History is writen by the Winer , right?!
If we for seome reason would not atack Soviet Union and would not draw USA in the fight but consolidate what was conquered - this lecture about seemingly unefficient German High Command would not happen.
The Abwehr useless
Show me a military that doesn’t have shortcomings. The German general staff was as good as anyone, and better than most.
There complete overconfidence during Operation Barbarossa is unjustifiable
Wehraboos didn't like this video hah.
"hanged every one of them.l..hehehehe"
WTF?
As opposed what happened in the fallen Soviet Union when no Red leader was held accountable for the Gulag and the mass savings in Ukraine.
@@JRobbySh Well that would have been antisemitic.
Let's see, population of naziland was 80.million, USSR WAS 160 million. Gee, i wonder who has an unending amount of cannon fodder?
Really dull. I thought thewar was more exciting.
G_d brought down Hitler.
If the audio was recorded on wax cylinders in that gaslit lab from Thomas Edison's home system, it's fine. Otherwise, you need to fix it.
Yeah, most of these these American military historians are okay (with the obvious exception of the far-right lunatics from Hillsdale), as are their analyses, but Richard Evans, David Glantz and the young German historians like Sönke Neitzel leave them all far, far behind. Check out Soldaten and Deutsche Krieger from Neitzel (now available in English) if you want to know the real depths of WWII European Theater history.
Wonderful lecture with a weakness. The National Socialists knew that Germany always had to gamble economically and militarily at risk. Even during the war against France there could be no plan b. In the war against France the risk paid off. The bet against the Soviet Union could also have worked. At this point the Wehrmacht leadership was already deeply involved in crimes. A lost war was fought for another four years.
Let's declare war on the US in the hopes that Japan will do something against the USSR.
That is not risk, that is suicide.
Who took on the communist ?