Even though Germany lost WW2, its amazing how they fought the whole war in Europe almost all by themselves against 4 countries, 2 of which are very powerful in terms of amount of production, and the Germans still held them off for almost 5 years. Goes to show you how good their generals and ability to fight was.
I dunno the brits (+ colonies) were fighting 3 axis powers at once plus the french collaborators alone at one point. And they had a tiny army to do so.
@@bmiha Bit of a strange argument, if the UK was connected to the continent we would have a completely different world. The UK wouldnt have such a small army either, it would probably not even exist as an entity and instead you would have an Anvigin empire of france and the UK. In fact a lot of the british character evolves from the fact it is an island, it is one of the most liberal (in the true meaning of the word) places on earth and a large part of that is the fact that it is so safe compared to Europe historically, that is also the reason that the British people were so against the Nazis and the communists (to a lesser degree). But more to your point Paris fell because the french didnt think the germans could get tanks through the Ardern, if there was a huge geography shift then it is unlikly that the same tactic (maginot line) would have been used.
My grandfather was Yugoslav partisan and told me a story, when they capzured some Germans and that his officer ask them "why did you not surrender" and they said "our kaplar did not gave the order" thats how disciplined were Germans
They were other reasons too. Germany knew what atrocities it had done and allies won't forget it that's why they fought so hard in end even though they're going to loose cause they knew they will face consequences of those atrocities. That's why many German suicided and you know how Red army treated civilians when reaching Berlin. Same with japan
@@ShubhamMishrabro One big factor of the german fighting strength was the internal Unit cohesion. The Wehrmacht managed during most of the war to keep units from the same regions together, rarely rotating in soldiers from entirely different backgrounds. That achieved a high level of fighting strength since the individual soldiers fought for their comrade in the foxhole next to them. There are some modern studies about the cohesion factor. It's pretty interesting.
@@ShubhamMishrabro "Same with Japan" such a fucking vague statement. If you're gonna talk about German atrocities talk about Japanese ones too, they were worst than Germans.
+midnight rider This doesn't surprise me, same is true vice versa. I work as Historian with a focus on Contemporary German History for the IFZ in München/Munich & also have Veterans in my Family, and they also all speak respectful of their former Enemies. I also talked to countless of WW2 Veterans from all the Countries, both in private & at Veteran Meetings. It's funny how you have a hard time finding actual WW2 Veterans speaking as disrespectful & insulting about their former Enemies as pretty much a large amount of TH-cam Comments on WW2 related Videos. Always makes me wonder how unaware most People are that f.e. American and German WW2 Veterans becoming close Friends, going together on War Cemetaries (of both Axis and Allies) to pay Respects was/is very common. I basically grew up around Axis and Allied WW2 Veterans going fishing together here in Germany, have Beers and BBQ in the Summer, even tell eachother War Stories from their Side & Experience, as if they never tried to kill one another during the War. Now compare this to any Comment Section on TH-cam about any WW2 related Video and a lot of Comments & Discussions you will find under these Videos. That said, luckily it's not only such Comments under WW2 Videos but also the good kind like yours! Prost & Cheers from the Berchtesgadener Land in the Bavarian Alps
@@chartreux1532: Thanks for your reply. Generally speaking, that seems to be the case, but my dad's brother fought in the Pacific during WW2. Great guy, but i think he held a bit of a grudge against the Japanese because of witnessing kamikaze attacks and other brutal acts by the Japanese. He passed away last year. Damn I miss that generation.
Patton was in awe of the germans, and regretted the destruction of germany, and claimed that we had fought the "wrong enemy". Then he was assassinated.
10:20 "Operation Uh was launched" For those who don't know, it was supposed to say Operation Barbarossa but the audio glitched out. It made me chuckle though
Actually their tanks sucked ass, they broke down too much, also they had many different variants of tanks and their factories couldnt keep up... Their soliders tho were effective and drugged up.
@@nickpapagiorgio9872 their tech wasnt better it was just their creativity, like putting radar and radio on everything. fun fact, french tanks were actually stronger than german tanks however i cant deny that the luftwaffe had better technology
@@adityakumar4087 Listen, You're disrespecting my Nation's pride -Tiranga by altering it's design and that's offensive. The symbol in middle of Tricolor must be Dharm chakra but you foolishly have replaced it with Nazi Haken cruez(Hooked cross) and mind you it's not Swastika. So if you're in your right mind, then plz change your profile pic.
The soviet union was too dangerous cause of its resources. France's plan was to make a stalemate with germany to win in the long term so declaring war on Russia would make them lose because The soviets had all the resources and manpower they needed. As it turns out nothing would be different in france if the USSR was declared by the allies. But if the USSR joined against britain its labor force together with the germans and german technology would build a massive navy and airforce with the latest technology and with the manpower and resources of the soviets it would be easy to defeat britain if the preparations were done correctly. So after those considerations they didnt declare war which led to britain not surrendering and the soviets basically winning the war against germany. Also France and Britain made a treaty with poland but it said protection against germany not Russia Note: the french knew about the speed of the wehrmact so france knew a stalemate was its advantage. But with the german tactis and soviet help it wouldnt have any advantage over germany
I remember a little saying from my history professor when we covered WW2 “A German Panzer was worth 5 Sherman tanks, the Americans sent 6.” Then, i remember a US officer apparently told his troops that if they saw a German gun they should dump their own and pick up the German one.
I'm so sorry to say this, but your history professor said something really unfair and stupid. Sure, tigers and panthers were great machines, but they had some problems, like failing rate (look at eastern front) , being hard to repair, using too much fuel... Sure, they had superb armor and good firepower, but they were too costly for germans. And no, german panzers (most likely panthers) werent worth 5 shermans. Panthers had better statistics on paper, but they were, for example, less flexible than shermans: due to German position, they were used mostly to fight other tanks. Because of that, one can't simply compare those machines: they were designed for a diffrent purpose, diffrent doctrine.
Oh, and about small arms. I'm not sure if the US officer told about modern guns or WW2 guns, but, eh, in the reality of ww II it wasn't that simple. MP40 was a great gun, but it had its disadvandages. In my opinion, PPS (pulemiot sudayeva) was even better. They had Worse stats, but better reliability and they were easier to repair. MP40 and, generally speaking, german arms had one great disadvantage: complexity.
@@jozen5384 I've personally shot a K98, it's vastly overrated. Definitely nowhere near a Garand with more rounds and semi-auto or Lee-Enfield with similar characteristics but faster fire rate and twice as many rounds in the magazine. I've only held the g43 and p08, but the g43 is reputable for being pretty garbage
K I dunno about that. Germany alone wouldnt have the resources to beat a lot of the allied countries alone really. Britain is on a fortress with the english channel as its walls, America had the entire Atlantic ocean and the best aircraft carrier fleet in history and Russia’s industrial capability and size dwarfed Germany’s by triple fold. Germany doesn’t have anything to counter any of those.
Bruh Bruh Point 1: Britain DOMINATED the skies and the seas. Germany’s land force could only land on Britain if aerial and naval superiority was achieved. Unfortunately for them, the battle of Britain already proved that Germany’s air force and navy was clearly inept and too underdeveloped to actually achieve dominance. Point 2: Hitler wasnt the cocky one. His generals were. Hitlers plan was to take the caucasus and take the oil fields there, the German Generals however were very insistent that taking moscow as early as possible was the better option. It was only until November of the early 1940s did the Generals back down from their plans to take Moscow as quickly as possible since Germany ran out of petrol quicker than they anticipated. Hitler only continued to order them to take moscow anyway as that mistake was brought by the generals on themselves. Point 3: Russia’s industrial infrastructure was left relatively intact and was relocated to siberia prior to operation Barbarossa. Meaning the soviets could still supply and arm more troops if they so wished, even if moscow was taken. Plus, with the destruction of the Caucasus oil fields after the Stalingrad siege, Germany no longer had the fuel and supply it needed to overwhelm russia any longer than 1941. Meaning, their offensive had a very small deadline to be completed until the Soviets recover from their early losses. Germany only wanted to fight a short and quick war with Russia as their supplies and men could not contend with the USSR’s vastly larger industrial complex. If the German army gave the soviet union just one month to breathe, the USSR could easily replace their losses and return even stronger. Unfortunately for Germany, their forces simply didnt have the numbers to take all of russia in one momentum’s push. Russia simply had too much land and forces for that to happen. Even with the west front command’s help, Germany still wouldnt be able to outnumber the Soviets and deliver the momentum Operation Barbarossa required to work.
Bruh Bruh Germany never focused on Naval superiority because they lacked iron primarily. Not because of their enemies. Even throughout WW2, Hitler had put significant focus on the Kriegsmarine and built a sizeable U-boat fleet even tho the army needed the iron and supplies put into those submarines. If the enemy was the main reason the Germans lost focus on Naval building, they would have never bothered to create development plans on the U-boats and Germany’s ill forgotten battleships/cruisers. Germany was importing iron from neutral Sweden in the late 1930s but the Brits were able to stop the trade. Without swedish steel imports, the hopes for Germany’s navy never came to fruition. Additionally, Germany never seeked to dominate nor had the capability to destroy Britain with their air force either. Goering always insisted that he could take on the RAF, but his incompetence led to the RAF’s recovery. History has shown the Germany had neither a competent commander and a powerful industrial economy to support the Luftwaffe and they never would have due to the fact Goering, the idiot that he is, was in charge of the air force at the time. Throughout the entire time, Germany seeked to eliminate Britain diplomatically and morally as a war in the air and skies was simply impossible given that the british eliminated Germany’s ability to get iron imports. No iron, no plane/ships for germany. As for hitler, the ostfront command brought the issue upon themselves as I already stated. Manstein’s and the German command’s over eagerness to end the war caused Germany to push towards Moscow when Hitler’s original directives were to push towards Stalingrad. The ostfront command only chickened out when supplies got low and the decision to abandon Army B and leave them to be the lone force to take the oil fields got delayed. Hitler merely just allowed the ostfront command to face their own consequences for their incompetent decisions.
Well because Germany is still economical powerhouse lot of Chinese factories actually use german made machines and small parts for their chips other than that car and food industries are enormous. Big food brands in the world are from Germany etc.
They are biggest economical power in Europe and even tho they don’t spend more than 2 precent GDP on military because of NATO they still hold major political power.
My grandfather had a medical issue so he was only a guard soldier. He guarded russian POWs in Norway. Allways told that was the best time of his live. All german and russian soldiers there were happy as hell, that they did not have to fight at the frontier. They were all buddies. Went together swimming, played football and tought each other songs from their homeland. In WW2 movies it allways looks like the soldiers from different nations hated each other. In reality most of them were just farmers and hard workers that got along quite well the moment an officier did not order them to kill each other.
Are you sure you are talking about the same germans and russians we know from ww2 ? The first trying to exterminate russian people and the second, trying their dammest to survive the extermination ?
Germany wasn't technologically superior. Not even close. - The British and Americans had superior radar, the single most important invention of the war. - The Americans developed nuclear weapons. - The British and Americans developed the proximity fuse, one of the most important inventions of the war that most people have never heard of. - The Americans had the M1 Garand and Carbine, both of which were a vastly superior rifle to the German Mauser 98. (Yes, I'm aware of the StG 44, but this rifle was developed too little, too late.) - The British and Americans both developed long ranged four engine heavy bombers. The American B-29, by itself, was an incredible technological achievement. - The Scotts invented modern antibiotics in 1942, which was quickly pushed to the front lines, greatly enhancing the recovery of wounded Allied soldiers. - America invented the "walkie-talkie" (AM SCR-536), a stunning enhancement in aiding infantry on the battlefield. - While Germans were using mostly horses and donkeys to run supply lines, Americans/British were using Jeeps. - ...and so on. The only really important tech advantage Germany had was jet fighters, and maybe submarines, though the latter was easily counterbalanced by Allied sub-hunting technology.
@@ikesteroma As for developing nuclear weapons there were many scientist and technicians from many countries like Britain, Hungary, Denmark, Italy and the Americans . This was an international multicultural multinational group who developed the atomic bomb! Basic research and formed a team! Yes America provided the facilities and money but the brains came from many nations including America and Germany! Names like Fermi, Selard, Teller, Oppenheimer, Heisenberg. As Hitler called nuclear science “Jewish Physics!” and poo poo’d it!
@@alanfenick1103 Yes, I know. I'm well aware that many allied innovations were developed by shared research between America and Britain. Either way, Germany was nowhere close to being technologically superior.
Fun fact: the term "Blitzkrieg" (or lightning war as it's english translation) was never really used by the German High command with it only ever being mentioned once or twice in the diaries of some high ranking generals. The term was coined by the Allies. The correct term used by the Germans was "Bewegungskrieg" (or Maneuver warfare as it's english translation). So while using the term Blitzkrieg is in a way technically correct by most peoples standards, the term Bewegungskrieg is far more accurate.
You neglected to mention the dire situation of the German logistics. Germany was running an oil deficit for pretty much the entire war, and though the oil fields of Romania helped, they still needed many more times that amount to just break even. This meant that most of the German army was on foot, and that during the invasion of the Soviet Union there was a stop-start pattern to the attacks where the Panzer groups had to wait for the rest of the army to catch up. This is also why winter was such an issue; Germany had winter supplies, but logistical bottlenecks kept them from reaching the front.
Right, im pretty sure the Germans had trouble with their fuel freezing in the russian winter. Shows you how cold it gets there. And I complain when it gets below freezing one degree.
Germany had a major oil deficit because they stupidly went to war with the major suppliers in the world. This can't be used as an excuse because it was a decision they made and the reason other countries don't willfully throw themselves into surprise attacks against 1/3 of the world's population. The entire logistic situation is a sign of german ignorance and incompetence and isn't merely "bad luck" or a bad situation. It is why aggressive wars are insane. Imagine America going to War with Saudia Arabia because they don't like Islam, then complaining that they can't fuel their tanks and say that is why they lost. Insane.
One of the biggest factor you forgot to mention was desperation, from everything that I've heard & studied, the Germans were proud & patriotic. Looking at the state their country was in after ww1 really did drive them over the edge.
@@mochalo4912 Not true. False propaganda trying to slander Germans. There was so much propaganda during the war it was sick. Just look at movies like Schindler's List and so many other famous Hollywood films that are pure fiction and fantasy. None of that stuff ever happened, and it's only to depict Germans as heartless, evil monsters.
The irony is that Hitler himself visited Napoleon graveyard when marching trough Paris after conquered it and ended up making the same tactical mistake as him.
6:45 The Germans field manuals or military though never themselves called it Blitzrkrieg. This was done by the foreign press who liked the "German word" blitzkrieg.
@@OstrobothnianGaming Bewegungskrieg especially in contrast to the "Stellungskrieg", positional warfare of WW1. Another term would be "Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen" ,combined arms.
Yes, and when the Soviets got their act together, they used their own version of that (called: Deep Battle Art of Warfare) to defeat the German invader. Oddly enough, the fulcrum moment of that happened when Germany was forced to adopt a more defensive (Stellungs) posture. Soviet Stavka (basically J.Stalin) started to allow his generals more flexibility and freedom of operations, while his opponent A.Schicklegruber (aka. A. Hitler) tightened his grip on the Wehrmacht and more relied on his (rather unilateral and sometimes but not always nonsensical) approach in dictating even the minutest details in the German Wehrmacht operations. The German obedience to "Befehl ist befehl" mentality eventually succumbed to the Soviet more flexible and ruthless execution of battle campaigning.
@@Centurion101B3C Moron hitler wouldn't even give his eastern troops winter supplies (as it would be bad for morale, and it was an ultimatum). Hitler's stupidity was so great, that later in the war, Churchill wouldn't help any "assassinate hitler" plans, as then someone who wasn't a complete moron may have taken over.
My favorite part of the comment section in every single video of every single war, is the amount of historians, veterans, and experts you come across. It's impressive. Almost everyone has such vast knowledge about all of it. Just amazing
Also how these historians just brush aside every single point made in the video and claim the complete opposite, without providing any arguments besides words like "actually", "stupid", "retarded" etc.
One of my history teachers said something to the effect of "Blitzkrieg was highly effective and relied on fast vehicles, and the Russians stopped it by throwing themselves at those vehicles until the tires or treads couldn't continue." It's a little hyperbolic, but it really drives home the point of how many Russians died during the operation to stop it.
@@alifimran9049 Yes, because they only heard their part of the story. Read an actual book. Germany had no chance at winning and the high command was riddled with idiots.
Yeah, interesting topic. Hope he'll include events leading up to it. His failed socialist movement, financial crisis, bad governing, how Italy didn't get parts of Croatia as they thought they would. Entire story is pretty cool.
Spoiler, some modern italian historians or history teachers speculate that all the march stuff was just a public stunt because he didn't want to appear weak as he was technically appointed tacitly by the king because he found him amusing. Also he started with socialist stuff to gain popularity but when he he got in power he basically beat workers up if they dared to have a strike.
Do you mean when Prussia lost to Napoleon or the time when Prussia nearly lost to Russia and only by luck Frederik (most certainly not that Great) came out on top in the 7 years war? Or the time when Prussia wasn't able to win against France without the help of Bavaria and secretly gifting them Neuschwanstein? Prussia wasn't impressive and also not really admired, it was made fun about, it was an army with a country and not a country with an army. Other nations like that are North Korea and such. Nobody admires North Korea.
@@dabozzcrgBattle of Rossbach (1757): During the Seven Years' War, Frederick the Great of Prussia defeated a combined French and Austrian army, establishing Prussia as a major European power.Battle of Leuthen (1757): Another significant battle in the Seven Years' War, Frederick the Great's Prussian forces decisively defeated a larger Austrian army.Battle of Torgau (1760): In the final years of the Seven Years' War, Prussia, alongside its British allies, achieved a victory against the Austrians and Russians.Battle of Valmy (1792): During the French Revolutionary Wars, Prussian forces under the Duke of Brunswick were defeated by the French revolutionary army. While this was a Prussian defeat, it marked a turning point in French history.Battle of Jena-Auerstedt (1806): Prussia suffered a significant defeat at the hands of Napoleon's French forces in this battle, which led to the occupation of Prussia.Battle of Leipzig (1813): Prussia, along with other coalition forces, achieved victory over Napoleon's army, marking a major turning point in the Napoleonic Wars.Battle of Waterloo (1815): While the Battle of Waterloo is often associated with the defeat of Napoleon, Prussian forces under Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher played a crucial role in the victory alongside the British.
First Schleswig War (1848-1851): Prussia, along with its allies, achieved victory over Denmark, gaining control of the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein.Austro-Prussian War (1866): Also known as the Seven Weeks' War, Prussia decisively defeated the Austrian Empire, leading to the dissolution of the German Confederation and the establishment of the North German Confederation under Prussian leadership.Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871): Prussia, along with its allies in the North German Confederation, achieved a resounding victory over France, leading to the unification of Germany and the proclamation of the German Empire in 1871.Battle of Gravelotte (1870): This battle was a pivotal moment in the Franco-Prussian War, where Prussian forces, led by Helmuth von Moltke, defeated the French, leading to the encirclement of the French army at Metz.Battle of Sedan (1870): In this battle, Prussian forces under King Wilhelm I and Chancellor Otto von Bismarck captured Emperor Napoleon III of France, a significant event in the war.
@@gerhardswihla1099 No, he got not elected. He just forbid every other party, so in the elections, his party was obviously the only one, who got voted.
War tactics and strategy is obviously very important. As a US Army veteran I can tell you that the moral of the soldiers on the frontlines is just as important. Regardless of what was said after the Nazi party fell. German soldiers were extremely motivated and well trained. I hate to say this because I believe German’s were brained washed. I think at the time of WW2 the soldiers 100% believed that what they’re doing was going to make the world better. Also, German’s were pissed on how they were treated after WW1. I believe that its also why Israel is nothing to play with because of the holocaust.
As a German I can assure you they were brainwashed. Even my grandparents can't think totally clear about this topics today. When it comes to the hate of jews, it didn't start with the Nazi party, they only brought the hate to another level. Christians hated jews since hundreds of years, Martin Luther was one of their biggest enemies (f.e. in the book "Of the jews and their lies") and the Nazis partly justified the holocaust with quotes of Luther. And Hitler said, he's only doing what the church is doing since 500 years, only better.
The leadership was the result of the militarized society Germany had become since 1870 and the resulting Prussian officer corps. The Germans studied their WW1 experience extensively so as not to make the same mistakes and put it all into practice. Their training and leadership reflected this, meanwhile the British and French were busy trying hard to forget world war 1 but were absolutely sure another war would be fought the same way i.e. trench warfare again. The Germans knew tanks made static warfare null and void and set about proving it -
@@robertmaybeth3434 Well，Germany defeated Russia in WW1。I think Germany made new mistakes in the USSR in WW2。The cruelty to the civilian population was both a crime and a mistake。
@@robertmaybeth3434 The Germans still lost。Hitler had the idea that the Germans would win because he thought they were superior，but Hitler neglected logistics and strategy。
The main reason the Germans were so effective initially was nobody else was actually prepared for war , the first real opposition the Germans came up against was the British Royal Air Force and they LOST , the advanced and worlds first integreted radar system proved too much for the Germans to deal with , then they took on the Russians who were woefully under prepared but as soon as the Russians got their act together guess what ....they LOST !! then they decided to take on the worlds biggest industrial power the USA and that really was the end , so in conclusion they were totally ineffective even with a head start mainly because they were plain f**king stupid .
Italy shouldve stayed out of the first world war. It wasnt real empire yet and yet it took on a second hand empire in face of A&H and took shitty loses and couldnt capitalise on that later. Shoildve tried to trade what it could for high prices and gain land for doing peace. No1 will give them high quantities but gainz are gainz. In ww2 they were being driven off by not an apex Balkan land army so what does that speak for their readiness? Greece was up to 7 times less populated and didnt had tradition of raising as large army in % as other balkanites. Italy otherwise shouldve tried to maintain its holding in Anatolia too rather expand. If staying out of war then after war they can be in better position to start building an empire. Absolutely no1 among the big powers will want to have a war so Italy can go in Balkans, Africa and Anatolia and no1 will be stopping them.
Italy had worse technology and a lower population. They didnt have the vast territory germany soon took either. There were also many opposed to mussolini, unlike hitler.
Germany and Italy are the contrasts of socialism, while they both agreed to the supremacy of the state over the multinational revolution, the approach to economics was different the Italians consolidated every industry into 6 messy sectors ran by corrupt politicians with loyalty to Mussolini. Hitlers Germany barly could wrestle anything away from the private sector so used fear and brutal punishments to frighten every sector into performing it's best. Germany could have had crappy tanks for sent nearly a million men into Africa to be captured by the allies but Germany had the policy of command the same way as the private sector the best or most ruthless won. Such was the commanders that the best and most ruthless often won making Germany efficent. Also the propaganda of germany was so strong defeats rarely stockpiled into routs. The Italians never really had a high socalist party, and many joined the facist side, so the moderates in contrast never backed the state. The Reds several times seized key germanic spots including Bavaria at one point and the army was powerless, frie kore or free corps showed up under no loyalty to the democratic state and put it down. It was clear the communists wanted red Germany to take over the world by locking arms with USSR, weather they believed in the super state is unknown. But the right wing which believed in kings backed Hindenburg and the conservatives where appalled by the communists, when faced with the destruction of german culture they chosen to double down on german culture. The socialists of the Nazi argued the state and germany wasn't just the best it was superior and offered a way forward without destroying everything german, however unlike Spain the right wing elements in the army would be brainwashed to believe Hitler was a God and the new king while conservatives would be later bullied by any means necessary after Catholics and Lutheran priests became a nuisance. Lastly germany imprisoned any decenters so successfully the state had no effective opposition, the Italian state lacked much backing and when it was clear the army couldn't or wouldn't go forward any more the Italian people jumped ship and overthrew the noise of the facist government.
The Italians managed to invent Nutella during world war II. Even when chocolate became expensive and scarce due to rationing in Europe. They were efficient, buddy, they were awesome!
The Germans had fewer and less effective pound for pound tanks, but they also had widespread use of radios in them, and the tactics used in combination with instant communication. They also used combined arms very well against poorly prepared enemies.
Actually only about 20% of the German Army was modern and mechanized. They were still using horses to move supplies. The British and American Armies were fully mechanized. With that and the USSR the Germans had zero chance.
@@Haberfeldtreiber369 Yes, but for every Tiger the Germans built the Americans could build 100 Sherman's AND 10 transport ships to ship them to Europe AND enough destroyers and jeep aircraft carriers to escort the convoy of transport ships. Oh, and during that time the Soviets would produce a dozen, or whatever, T34s themselves. Germany was finished at Stalingrad. In a war of production it was Uber fucked.
Napoleon just lost because of the Russian winter. The Nazis couldn't even plan a war the right way, when Stalin moved the whole war industry to the Ural in just 6 months their plans were literally finished making them unable to maintain progress, other tactics/priorities would've been successful, but luckily the GröFaZ was Hitler himself who knew nothing about war tactics besides Blitzkrieg a tactic originated in WW1
@@user-jq2iz9zn4p If one side didn't take the right clothing to the battlefield the weather is the issue. Blitzkrieg is a pretty vulnerable tactic, even the slightest slowdown can break the whole frontline. Thats why the Nazis were dumb af, incompetent to plan wars further than the next step.
So it wasn't called Operation Barbarossa it was Operation UH the whole time. Makes sense. That would be a reasonable response to anyone who isn't insane who looked at this plan for just a second.
Everyone was fighting? The hell do you mean no balls, poland fought, Denmark, Belgium, France, UK, they only lasted 1 year before they started loosing heavily
@@jfloes90 Exactly. Czechoslovakia was allied with France and UK, but France and UK betray them to avoid war and give Czechoslovakia to Germany on silver platter. No one suggest that stolen lands should be returned to Czech and Slovaks.
I mean when you lose several generations of men because of egos and treaties just years ago, most probably aren’t gonna start another war over production of an army.
The real major factor of german army's efficence was their experience. They were able, contrary to other great powers in europe, to test their new tactics, strategies and materials. First with the Condor legion in Spain (were they also saw the importance of radios). Then with the annexion of Austria. Yeah, even if Ausria was diplomaticaly annexed, their throw their armored divisions to control the ground and muzzle the potnetial rebelions. They experienced the difficulty to supplie and maneuver such formations so they created a oil supplie service and improved their ability to use their armored divisions. It was also the case in Czechoslovakia. Furthermore they really tried their tactics on Poland, versus an less dangerous ennemy (dispite that, they sustain heavy losses in Poland). All these experiences permit them to build a verry effective force, because their military theory was put to practice, so corrected and improved to face the reality of the terrain. Cooperation between all the branches of the army was also improved due the these expermences (mainly cooperation between ground forces and airforces). The idea that german equipment is better than other country's one is not totally true. In terms of armor and fire power, french tanks were known as better. But german ones were all equiped with radios, and were more ergonomic (with more than one man in the turret of the tank, wich permit the commander of the tank to focus on his commanding and observing role --> an other lesson of Spain). They learned from their defeat during the first world war, while the allies stayed on their positions (surely it's easy to criticize now, but from their point of view the allie's late war tactics were totally superior to german ones), so they were able to theorize new tactics based on allie's ones, and the thing that permit the german to build a military adapted to their new tactics is the fact that they rebuilt their army from nothing. There's a lot more to say one this subject but I don't want to write a book in comment :p
Also don't forget the moral of the soldiers through massive propaganda. What should also not be forgotten is the fact that they robbed huge amounts of money, gold and other resources from the humans they have murdered.
@Nilon yep and i talked about the tactical befefits of their experience but it also leads to the groth of veterants in the army, wich is a good perspective ;) PS : we might consider that these facts are true for the early war perdiod but the perspectives are really not the same for the late war perdiod (the german army's peak of efficience is know to be in 1941, at the start of barbarossa).
Fantastic visualization of the Panzer break out. That really helped me understand the mechanics behind the Weirmacht's ability to consistently get through the oppositions line.
That and he asked Roosevelt for millions of dollars, oil, food and material including weapons and ships. USA gave him all that during Lend-Lease because without that the Germans would of made it to the Middle East oil fields and then it would of been game over for soviets.
@@premieroptimist1277 IF the Germans had reached the oil fields, they may have won the war. Their only fault was their lack of oil. With oil they could mass produce some damn good tanks, submarines to destroy the British Navy and aircraft to regain their air superiority. But, alas, the 35,000 T-34 were too much for the German front line
Maybe he did that intentionally to avoid demonitization by yt.. I saw a video before where they used iron cross instead of swastika symbol. Im not sure myself, just a thought.
3:30 As far as I know, Hitler never earnd the absolute majority. Just 37% of the people voted for the NSDAP. He was promoted through Hindenburg in 1933.
not only Hindenburg, but also the votes of conservative and liberal MPs in Parliament, who opposed the next two larger parties (socialists and communists) far more than they opposed the Nazis. This is often airbrushed from official narratives of history
And: The NSDAP was NOT a "right" but a"left" party- The National Socialist German Workers Party... It is historically wrong to say, Hitler was politically right- winged. The Nazis were in the same side side as the communists just under another colour and in a more nationalist manner...The so called right conservatives were one of Hitlers declared political enemies...
@@Solihull88 No, this is a conspiracy theory. The right conservatives were not Hitlers enemies. They wanted to bring back a monarchy and so gave the power to Hitler (lock for von Papen, Brüning). He was also heavily supported by the heavy industrialists. The only slightly "communist" in the NSDAP was the SA leadership, but they got killed in 1934 by Hitler. Hitler also said, that the communists and socialists are the worst and he tried to end the communism overall. And whoch "communist" laws did Hitler make, when he was in power?
@@kwtr1609 Der Idee der NSDAP sind wir die deutsche Linke... Nichts ist uns verhasster als der rechtsstehende nationale Besitzbürgerblock" Quelle: Joseph Goebbels 1931 Der Angriff
Tactical genius in charge of high quality divisions coupled with speed. Their enemies assumed the war would be like the one before mostly defensive because of it being only 20 years difference. They understood that the new tech was better suited for offensives and prepared far before the rest not letting their advantage go to waste.
Their enemies were also not ready for war and they were If they hadn't attacked when they did, their offensive could have bogged down and it would have become a war of attrition which Germany was not going to win
@The One This entire comment section is full of fucking neo nazis and you're part of it... Germany lost as soon as they thought they could take on the world. Everyone just needed time to actually prepare and then it went downhill for them.
They armed and trained their armies before everyone else while also engaging in a agressive style of fighting in order to make use of their starting advantage.
Yes! And taking all those smaller countries individually would minimise losses while giving them more soldiers and factories etc. Eg. They lost 2000 men taking Norway, but over 5000 norwegians joined the german army. Countries like hungary, romania, bulgaria, croatia region would be very supportive of germany and are often overlooked.
@@godlovesyou1995 Because their value in terms of fighting force was negligible. Even their biggest ally, Italy, was a liability most of the time. The SS-Divisions made up of foreigners were usually pretty weak. So were the Armies of the other Axis powers. For example it were the units of supporting nations that held the flanks at Stalingrad where the Sowjets forced the attack and achieved encirclement.
The French,British and Polish armies were trained and equiped. The reason germany won the battle of France was because of Luck and the allied airforce being sleepy
It is true but for west Europe mainly. The Soviets knew what future will be. Their army was getting experience here and there too. The great purge is either false in quantity or treason at its finest. In west I got a conspiracy theory. The west allowed Germany to win there. They waited for Germany to do what it wants. If they had attacked when it was most convenient Germany wouldve wasted a lot of time on home soil before it could potentially go for Paris. Also German tanks werent better than French tanks.
My grand dad was in the WW2 he fought with the 21st Maori battalion. Like most of ANZAC they were frontline and were the sheep led to be slaughtered first. He was one of the very few that returned. Was advised by my Father never to speak to him about the war. As a curious 6 year old I asked him and he would respond always telling me its not something you want to ever go through. He told me a number of stories
It took my father 40 years to process his youth and the development of the war, where his father was lost in captivity after end of war; mainly by endless watching historical TV war documentaries, which at the time I did not understand.
Mission command. The flexibility given to ncos and lower level officers to make their own decisions on how to go about achieving their objectives was a key factor in the Heer's effectiveness imo.
@@user-jq2iz9zn4p What? Ähm no! The germans still inflicted more casualities to the red army then the red army did to them. There are very few occasions when the red army didn't lost more men then the Wehrmacht!
@@user-jq2iz9zn4p yeah but you dont need to be more effective to win a war. In the end the soviets won, thats vorrect but they lost more men and Equipment than the Wehrmacht making the Wehrmacht more effective Effectiveness means to inflict more loses than receiving loses yourself, kt doesnt matter if you win or Lose to have a high effectivness
The Institution known as the "German General Staff" and it's ideas of "Institutionalized Excellence" had a lot to do with the German Army's post Napoleon successes. This core of highly trained professional officers(truly the first of it's kind ever) was what fundamentally changed the German Army into the Juggernaut we see in the world wars.It was so effective that it was one of the things prohibited by the Versailles treaty,but the Germans got around that by renaming it the office of Training or some such.Couple this with the emphasis on innovation at the squad and platoon levels(again unseen in the mid 1800's) was extremely revolutionary and extremely effective.
innovation at the squad and platoon levels: called Auftragtaktik in German, Was started 1807 by Calusewitz in the Eastern German provinces, and perfected by the Imperial Russian Army against Napoleon in 1812. It is described in great detail by Clausewitz notes / diaries on this war, edited and published by his wife after Clausewitz death. His advice and observations are very detailed and -sensible, going down to the storage of flower to feed the troops. His prose is very direct and sarcastic, nearly untranslatable I would judge.
The German General Staff was a mess and did not have the proper intelligence to even start a war, when they attacked Russia they knew nothing about the Russian strength or their industrial might. No proper plan was made or kept to which was their downfall.
@@johntruman4397 the fuck? have you ever informed yourself? thats the biggest bullshit i have ever heard. not to mention that the secrete service they had was unrivaled
My grandad was in the Kings Shropshire light infantry. He fought and stormed monte casino, he didn’t speak much about the war but after researching that battle I can understand why
No. In the 1939, at the beginning of the war, the German tanks were inferior to the French, to the British and to the Russian tanks. It's a well-known fact. The German tanks kept improving during the war, and their number, the number of the Tiger, KingTiger & Co., was nowhere near to those needed, other than being fragile and... it's more complicated than what people think.
I would argue the German tanks in 1939-40 were the best in the world while at the end of the war, they were only slightly better in some ways than the allies tanks with allied tanks being better in other ways. The Chieftain talks a lot about how the panzer 3 was likely the best tank in the world before the Sherman came out. While the French tanks may have had better armor and sometimes guns, and a lot of the times this wasn’t even the case, the crew layout of 5 men in very ergonomic positions and the much better vision of all positions but the commander especially, as well as the radios allow German tanks in 1939-40 to be much more effective than the French.
@@SgtBagel1 Adding to that was the fact that most Allied tanks early war used flags, hand signals, runners, and other outdated means of communication, while all German tanks had a 2 way radio, making the coordination of German armor vastly superior.
The bottom line is that the Germans won through a superior *doctrine* and leveraged their forces more effectively than the allies. A glaring example of this was the French dispersing their superior tanks as infantry support pieces, and not forming as many tank divisions as the Germans did. They simply misallocated a lot of their resources. In fact, the only area the Germans had a decided advantage both technically and numerically was in the Air. Outside of that, the allied nations were supposed to win on paper. Their strategy was brilliant though, and they simply leveraged their forces better in the end.
So, this war makes sense - from the German perspective. If you see their history, prior to the formation of the German Empire, Prussians took the exact same approach to nation-building. They engaged in decisive conflicts with neighboring nations such as France and Austria and defeated them in detail to secure their place in Central Europe.
You forgot about the German War College. One mistake the Entente made when writing the Versailles treaty was not neutering the old Prussian Academy. This is why their Army was so competent in both wars. They could draw on literally hundreds of years of refined institutional knowledge, experience, and planning going back to Fredrick the Great of Prussia. This is what produced leaders like Erwin Rommel and Heins Guderian.
This actually makes sense. They're leadership hard carried them throughout the war. But that also only went so far as well. They ran into problems that neither the leadership or shitstache could deal with.
@@mando_dablord2646 Your dang right they did. Though when one thinks about it, what happens if you give little stach the epiphany that he can't beat big stach in a short walk-in campaign and he instead continues the pact for another year or so? We saw just what Croutany could do to the world's leading land power after 8 months of proper preparations. Especially when they determined their performance in the Polish campaign to be less than adequate.
"Why was the German Army so Effective and strong in World War 2?" Because (when Germany still had the abilities to do so) the German Army educated its personnel to a higher standard than anybody else. More thorough, multitask capable and trained one level above the initial appointed rank.
i oppose - it was power in numbers plus they gave them pervitin so they can carry on walking 7 days without fatigue - it worked best in 1939 and 1940 but then logistics plus reaction of allies resluted in 1945
Imagine if the Americans, in 1933 decided to invade Europe, and they spent 6 years developing armaments, doctrine, and training officers and soldiers...can you imagine the quality of troops and equipment that would bombard the continent. Only the germans, starting in the 1924, planned for an offensive war...their economy and military structure was built for one goal. To get revenge for 1918. This was before the nazis. They therefore had a huge advantage in preparation and time, and because they planned for an offensive war they developed offensive doctrine. This also explains why they were so pathetic in the open ocean when confronted with the Americans and British...those two nations planned to dominate via their navy, and invested heavily, even in the interwar years. The Americans had ZERO plans for another land war, and therefore invested nothing into development of a land army. To think that in 1 year after entering the war the Americans could land infantry and tanks to fight an enemy that had been preparing for 8 years is more amazing than anything the germans did. People forget that all of europe thought the great war was the last war, except for the germans. They planned for the 2nd war when the first one ended.
@@orclover2353 yeah so pretty much the germans were just more prepared, which was evident enough. chamberlain was so focused on peace and france had such a shitshow of a military because of how arrogant they were.
I'd say it's an extremely general explanation that ommits a lot of factors. The first is that the Germans in each of their big campaigns at the beginning of war, faced enemy that was more or less obsolete, disorganized and even unprepared. In case of Poland one thing is that we didn't have sufficient numbers of tanks and airplanes, and the latter were obsolete. So as orginization of most of the army except for maybe one experimental tank unit. But the biggest problem was that; 1. The general defense plan was never prepared and commanders had to improvise, 2. The country was penetrated by German spies and saboteurs, 3. The army was mobilised in about 50% in the state chaos due to repeated announced and called off mobilizations. Why mobilizations were called off? Because Great Britain pushed Poland to call mobilization off. 4. Polish borders were very long and thus difficult to defend. A rational decision would be to fall back and form a ring of defense deep inside the country, and wait for the Allies in such state. But Polish leaders were afraid that if they wouldn't fight for all lands, a Monachium scenario would repeat itself and the Allies would ask Poland to give undefended lands to Germany. So from the start Poland was not aiming to fight effectively, but aiming to show that certain lands were important for them. Also mind that on 17th of September when situation was for Poles was bad, but they still had some significant reserves, we were attacked by the Soviet Union. France had several problems as well. The biggest mistake they made, was obviously they ignored the route through Ardennes, although they had done an experiment proving the tanks could go through there. The structure and fighting tactics of the French army were obviously obsolete. Big part of their air force was obsolete as well. French also had terrible trouble with coordinating their attacks. Their tanks would attack without protection from the air force, and sometimes even without infantry. To call artillery support, French officers had to fill in a form, and send a soldier on a bicycle. The German success happened greatly thanks to the fact, that tanks would not only break through the front. They would search for the weakest point in defences, and then rally through the country, and French were unable to track their positions. French command officers would often realise position of German tankgs when they saw them in front of their command centers. But the reason France fell so quickly was mainly because of political decision to surrender. France still had significant reserves and soldiers in good spirits and could fight for much longer, but it just chose not to fight. With Soviet Union, Germans had several factors of advantage. Not only Stalin killed lots of valuable officers just a few years earlier and new ones were very poorly trained. The Soviet air force was again, obsolete, same as their tank forces that didn't have radio stations and couldn't communicate effectively on the battlefield. Soviet tanks would be poorly used, and attack without infantry support, which together with lack of radio cummunications, meant they were a very easy target for well trained and coordinated German forces. Even when T-34 and KV tanks turned up, the same problems would apply, and Soviets would lose them by sending them alone. The Germans would also train in the USSR before the war, and had good relations with the locals. This, together with propaganda that spoke of fighting for communism, the party and world revolution resulted in very low morale in the Red Army. With some exceptions of fierce and frantic resistance, Soviet soldiers didn't understand what they were fighting for, and in some regions, such as Ukraine or Latvia, Germans were seen as saviors. This attitude changed once Germans started committing war crimes, and Soviet communists changed their war propaganda. Instead of fighting for communism, revolution and the party, people would be told to fight for motherland. Stalin even stopped persecution of the Orthodox church and asked for aid in building up morale. German tactics, training and discipline was only one of many elements, because in each succesful campaign they would fight an enemy that had huge problems.
@@SparrowNoblePoland ahh just shut up germans were outnumbered by the french and british plus german tanks could not go to fight with a french or soviet tank head on.... german army had many problems too but they overall were the better army untill 1944-1945
@@kuqezi8378 Things I mentioned, are described in detailed history books on the matter, and your argument is 'shut up, German tanks couldn't fight with other tanks'. LOL First of all it's not true. Even against T-34, German analysis from the time showed that Pz.III would win an encounter. That is because T-34s didn't have radio stations, the commander was overloaded and practically blind when inside the tank. Plus, Soviets had no idea how to use them, and they did not operate in larger groups before 1942. Earlier Soviets relied mainly on T-26 tanks, and to some extent BT series which German tanks could take on on equal terms or with ease. In terms of fighting with Polish or British tanks, German tanks were comparable or superior. Only the French were a threat, but Germans avoided fighting them with tanks, and they posed a threat mainly to infantry and artillery. But the more important thing you do not understand and what statistics clearly show, is that during WWII tanks rarely fought each other. Usually tanks were fighting infantry and artillery. In American doctrine a tank wasn't even an anti-tank weapon. Tank destroyer was. Wehrmacht also had separate units of tank destroyers, which consisted mainly of infantry armed with anti-tank weapons such as A/T guns, and it was the tank destroyers infantry that had most trouble with French tanks and rare encounters with T-34s and KVs, because their main weapon was 37mm A/T gun, and heavier A/T guns were a rarity. The only reason why a tank fight became a thing, was that Soviets had virtually unlimited numbers of tanks and armored vehicles they could easily replace, so on the East front a risk that a tank would fight another tank was considerably larger than anywhere else. Which is why Germans accelerated work on Tiger, and thought of Panther tanks and used them in the role of tank destroyers. But before Soviets mass-produced considerable amounts of T-34s and KVs tank vs. tank fights were a rarity, and remained a rarity in the West till the end of the war. Most of the time tanks were fighting versus infantry and it's true even for the East Front, where most Soviet tanks were destroyed by anti-tank artillery.
Speed leading to encirclements is why. This would later come to bite them though since it used a lot of resources, resources they couldn’t keep afloat m.
1) the point that USSR and Germans had agreement and worked together in alliance from 1939 till 1941 somehow is not mentioned 2)Soviet Union doesn’t mean Russians.
The Germans are famous blacksmiths in medieval europe, their pride in engineering is deep rooted in their people and their history. Their craftsmanship is legendary and this cultural reputation forced future generations to keep up the tradition. Made in Germany is not a branding but an absolute quality assurance that is endorsed on only the best products.
Made in Germany isn’t the quality it once was nowadays most German companies produce their stuff in China like every other country. Made in Germany has lost its status. It once was a seal of quality but now it means 30-50% of the work was done in Germany. The rest was done all over the world.
I have spoken to a German guy about this. He told me one of the reason Germany was so effective was a result of the limit the other countries put on Germany to have an army. This resulted in fewer officers being educated. So only the best officers could attend officer shool. The officers was trained in how to use the army most effective. Later Hitler took over Germany and removed the limit on the army. or something like that
Some of the big names like Guderian and Rommel also had some fuckups that could have been avoided. In essence, both of them tended to rush forward with their armored troops way too quickly which made reenforcing the German flanks a lot harder. And most officers only have that great of a reputation because they knew how to show themselves in a good light
@David Schneider yes, but they literally captured millions of troops with that strategy, the first time it failed was stalingrad but that was bc they fought urban warfare and couldn't menauver around, so all in all it worked very well, won them france and even captured millions in the first 2 years of Barbarossa, no army on earth other than the soviets could've lost that many troops and equipment and keep fighting a land war the USSR was very tenacious, Plus hitler benched heinz early and rommel was mostly in Africa with bad supplies
@@bigtittie7295 actually it failed because hitler ordered some troops to go south before stalingrad, instead of after, to take the oil fields. which left it not enough to breath through fast
@@zero.Identity well, the 6th army took 93 percent of stalingrad, but the 4th Army (the one youre talking about) was south and not covering the 6th Armies flanks while they fought to take the rest of Stalingrad resulting in them all getting encircled
I love the video, the only problem with it is that Germans werent as motorized as it's in the common belief. They used lot of horses and they struggled to get enough oil especially the later stages of the war when the allied were successfully bombed down the synthetic oil refineries (Also they only had oil reserves for something like 3 months of warfare before launching Barbarossa). Their loss was truly the tragic of over confidence and logistical nightmares. Also if they wouldn't hate on jews they wouldve kept high quality human capital like Einsten and dozens of other physicists/ scientists who developed the atom bomb at the end.
I knew about the horses carrying fuel and food when they invaded northern France. Do you know if the carriages were as heavily protected as the animations of this video suggest? Cause I was thinking, with a few snipers here and there... bye be fuel.
@@vittoriuz---It's the Russian version of Dunkirk. It's where the Russian Navy and a bunch of soldiers n civilians evacuated from this port called Tallinn in 1941 when Operation Barbarossa was in full swing.
Not really More like the fact that the nazis were the only ones prepared for the war. Once the soviets got their shit together the nazis got their ass kicked
@@sapiensiski got their shit together is more like until they got support from other allies. To defeat many times smaller country lol that was already fighting 5 other countries lol
@@deangregoric4735 you know its the soviets who won kursk and stalingrad and turned the tide of the eastern front... right? also the soviets could have easily defeated the nazis, it would have just taken more time Just face it, your beloved nazis werent so good at war
@@sapiensiski You got it wrong. The reason why the Germans struggeled with Russia was because of the climate. It was very cold and they needed to build railways and shit to advance. They were using up alot of their resourcers. Same mistake with Napoleon. Plus the 2 side war really lost the germans morale. If Germany didnt go to war against Soviet. Then if the Soviet attack alone they wouldnt win
@@sapiensiski kursk and Stalingrad wore already when allies wore helping soviets we Will not talk what would have happened if not for allies because it's only speculation but if we look at numbers we can see that even with aid soviets could barely hold positions not to mention that at that time Germans wore deprived of resources and winter pretty much crippled them so basically we are looking at country with far less men fighting 5 countries making some terrible decisions and still managed to almost beat much bigger country with more than few times bigger army that cried allies for help And here you are telling naziz weren't that strong? How can you think that someone can take you seriously?
The real keys to Germany's early successes were intelligent use of radios and mobile warfare tactics. France actually had a significantly larger modern tank force than Germany in 1940. However, they didn't utilize new technology effectively and dispersed their tanks widely, allowing Germany to coordinate, concentrate their tanks, and overpower the French at the point of contact.
As a brit I can name eleven excellent German Generals but only one mediocre British one that is why they were so effective... they were vastly more competent soldiers than the aristocratic British generals who knew which side the port should be served but were rubbish at actually fighting a war
The German generals lost to the British generals and lost the air war against the British. German generals were ok while they were winning but when they met the allies they were tossed to one side and over run whenever they stood or attacked.
True, the battle of Arnhem is a good example. elite British troops were very brave, but maybe the majority of British officers had no clue. see the recent book by Beevor.
more like the german generals were allowed to print ludicrous propaganda to make themselves look good. the cold war between the west and the sovjets already began during the second world war. so when the second world war ended both parties used propaganda to get a dominant position in central europe. so the west used the german generals and let them print their fake histories and autobiographies in which they protrayed the russians as animals who didnt even hesitate to kill their own men for communisms victory, that the russians are an unstoppobale force that couldnt be beaten,that the german army wasnt that much involved in ethical cleansing and that the generals were against hitler etc. with the end of the sovjet union and the cold war we got a lot more sources from the sowjet side and you can say that almost 85% writen about the eastern front before 1991 is complete bullshit
I like your videos those are amusing and help me to acquire more knowledge and I am your former supporter and old subscriber I subscribed you from 5k so please make a video on Skanderbeg I liked your videos before seeing so please
As a fan of Dan Carlins history podcast, a common theme in ALL wars presents itself. Time and time again, even in wars like the persian gulf war, the victor is the one who grabs and adopts the new technology. Why do you think the US military is adapting to drones now? In all wars, back to the Romans, one side clings to the old ways, and one aggressively dives into the new technology.
actually they lost because of many reason. logistic, manpower and i would say material and factory bombardment(maybe included in logistic. U cant resupply material and oil in war if u often get sabotage and 1panzer iv or panther get overrun by hundred of t34. on late war with decreasing quality from german factory( lack of quality alloy.etc) t34 consider superior against german tank. Also german tank have lot of breakdown in winter on soviet. So early war they win as war prolonged the lost already.
True. Russia alone would have lost pretty hard to Germany. But there is another country. Today if a full scale world war would break out, not even the whole world could stop the USA. USA is far more superior to the rest of the world than Germany was.
@@stanstanic8422 NOPE, it was Russia, Usa, UK, France and a lot more countries. If Germany had focused the entire army in the Eastern front the outcome would be a different one. And it wasn't only the Russian army who beat them in Russian front, Russian winter did just as much. Hitler did his part in it too because he often times "corrected" his generals decisions, luckily he was an awful strategist.
The German Army were the greatest military machine the planet had ever seen by far. They only lost because the Allies outproduced them. On the battle field, they were invincible.
Ah, yes. That's why the Germans failed in every front they fought in, because they were invincible. Even on the defensive the Germans were incapable of stopping the Allies from pushing them to their own borders. Even in Africa when the Germans had more equipment in their ports than the British had in the field, the Germans failed to defeat them. The German Army of WWII is the most overrated thing in existence.
@@youraveragescotsman7119 dude... we germans won against france, we were fucking balls deep in USSR, we took over Greece where Italy failed, we defended ourselves against Italy when they switched sides pretty hard and they were not able to push the Germans back what so ever... My point is: WE FOUGHT AGAINST -FRANCE(supernation), -BRITAIN(supernation), -RUSSIA(supernation), -midway through also against ITALY (supposed to be a supernation but failed to invade Greece💀), -GREECE and a bunch of other nations *_AND WE WERE WINNING!!!_* Sure, eventually after getting resources from the USA for years and having the USA also help by fighting in France(D-Day), the Soviets at some point managed to push back... *_it took every supernation except of course Germany combined to take down Germany!!!_*
@@youraveragescotsman7119 no tienes nada de idea. 1 Los alemanes invadieron toda Europa 2 Aislaron a Reino Unido 3 Invadieron la mitad de la unión soviética 4Sus tácticas son estudiadas hoy en día Te sigue pareciendo sobrevalorado
this didnt get brought up in the video but one of the reasons why they were so effective at DOGFIGHTING and could dominate the skies was because they were the first ones to realize you could use Nitrous Oxide in an engine for increased performance. theyd take their opponents to a higher altitude with thinner air where the engine would run richer, slower, and less effective, then engage their nitrous for oxygen on demand allowing them to fly faster and out flank and out manuever which let them just DOMINATE in dogfighting for the first few years of the war, until the US showed up.
The germans were brilliant. My dad landed on Omaha beach the morning of d-day with the 147th combat engineers. He passed away 4-1-13 but he often spoke highly of the german's intelligence & technologies. The allies did not defeat buffoons.
I truly believe that German people are a rare and dominating race… its mind boggling to think that they were destroyed in both world wars and still be the top 4/5 economic power house in the world
that's true even their ancestor viking defeat Roman Empire and conquer eroupe after that and built new kingdom such as Frankish Empire, being a king in kingdom of england, denmark, norway, Holy Roman empire even Habsbrug Dynasty is one of the most powerful dynasty in the world at the time, and then we have Prussia, German Empire, Nazi and German nowadays. Fun fact queen victoria is german descent when she is coqueror 1/4 of the world. That's how powerful and dominance race was a german people. Not only dominance by power but in term of economy and intelligents too. In fact I'm not german.
@@VincenzoInfi Thats bullshit. The german economy was crazily strong before WWI in 1914. The german engineering was top class and the nobel prizes went to the famous german researchers. German Was the lingua franca in physics back then. In WWI nothing was destroyed since the war took place in France. Due to heavy destruction in WWII massive reconstruction was needed which fueled a strong economic recovery. The marshall plan for Germany was smaller than for the other european countries. It was clear that the german ppl will build up their old strength because they can!
@@LiquidIEx it’s not bullshit, since all your aryan ran along shit you had almost every house destroyed, a Europe in total was mostly destroyed by the Germans, which is why there is still some anti-aryan sentiment around today, the USA started the Truman plan I think it was called, to invest into all of Europe and west Germany
The German army was low in armor technology and resources but they have better-trained officers and Generals along with tactics which made them effective in the first few years.
yeah even tho the marshall plan makes sense, Germany quickly overtook England in terms of economy. Even tho England won the war (or maybe survived it lol), their empire broke down and Churchill had to see it. probably made a lot of pain in his arse.
@@msreviews5576 well ww2 occured in a period of time when Empires were slowly and gradually getting weaker and weaker. The Cold War would finally put the nail in the coffin for the Empires that spawned in the Victorian and Imperial eras
They didn't have a country until 1871, fast forward 30 years they become a world superpower Lose a war badly and live under terrible conditions for 20 years, 5 more years and become a superpower AGAIN Have a divided country for 50 years ?, no problem 20 years of unity and back on track with the rest of world leaders Gotta admire that in a nation :D
Also, only about 20% of the German Army was modern and mechanized. They were still using horses to move supplies. The British and American Armies were fully mechanized. With that and the USSR the Germans had zero chance.
@@shrimpflea because of a lack of oil. Technologically speaking the Nazis were highly advanced, especially in aviation, the V2 was the first object to reach space, the Nazis also got the Yankees on the moon (Operation Paperclip). What also made Britain effective was their computing from Alan Turing, Germans had Zuse.
@@lokischeissmessiah5749 more self impressed then the Brittish, French or the American? I don't think so. With that said. I do agree with you that the German plan was very much doomed from the start. Does work with certain enemies but not with all. Just like every type of warfare. Though its very easy to dismiss something with the history book in hand and a different thing to look through the lense of history from its own time and people. Why taking different perspective, giving the other side its chance and fair points is important. As the video states and intended making. History is written by the winner but made for learning.
@@lokischeissmessiah5749 about present day Germany culture and mindset I cannot comment but the rest I do fully agree with you, on how the mindset of nationalistic fanataism that always lead to all reality is cast out in total ignorance, is the core of the WW2 German (and almost every other nation that have sought to become an empire) ultimate demise.
Germany was woefully inefficient when it came to their production of weapons and materials. They often over engineered everything and had multiple variations of vehicles they didn’t even need.
@A. M. if the allies didnt attack the heavy water facility in norway germany would have the nuke bye end of 43 the germans also knew they would declare war after invading poland and germany was the most advanced country at that point rockets they invented actual jets submarines were topnotch and guns were also strong af
It already did as Israel is an ethnic nationalist state with an apartheid (clear difference of who is a citizen) and is also in permant warfare as Germany was when surrounded by allied satellite sates.
3:32 Well... he wasn’t really elected. He was assigned to that position by the government because they thought that it would put him somewhere they could control him and it would make him calm down. We see how well that worked out though
@@MatanT18 No he didn't? He position was assigned to him by the government without him winning any sort of election. There was fear that he would win an election and would ruin Germany, but he never did since he was able to use the position granted to him to achieve that. You can find all sorts of information on this all over the place if you so please
@@sympathiser_of_Germans_in_40s oh you mean Russia utterly collapsing under weight of invasion? Russia hadn’t won a war since the Crimean war at that point
![BOWKYLION - วิงวอน (ex-change) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/cLdnZWDaO-w/mqdefault.jpg)
Even though Germany lost WW2, its amazing how they fought the whole war in Europe almost all by themselves against 4 countries, 2 of which are very powerful in terms of amount of production, and the Germans still held them off for almost 5 years. Goes to show you how good their generals and ability to fight was.
Factz Hitler wasn't playing they got a little help from the Japanese, the Italians switched out an left the Germans hanging tho.
LOL, believe it if you will but El Alamein gives the lie to that notion.
I dunno the brits (+ colonies) were fighting 3 axis powers at once plus the french collaborators alone at one point.
And they had a tiny army to do so.
@@wittyexquisite japanese is busy, and italians were afk..haha
@@bmiha Bit of a strange argument, if the UK was connected to the continent we would have a completely different world. The UK wouldnt have such a small army either, it would probably not even exist as an entity and instead you would have an Anvigin empire of france and the UK.
In fact a lot of the british character evolves from the fact it is an island, it is one of the most liberal (in the true meaning of the word) places on earth and a large part of that is the fact that it is so safe compared to Europe historically, that is also the reason that the British people were so against the Nazis and the communists (to a lesser degree).
But more to your point Paris fell because the french didnt think the germans could get tanks through the Ardern, if there was a huge geography shift then it is unlikly that the same tactic (maginot line) would have been used.
Everyone knows it’s cos of that 100% research bonus for heavy tanks
Lmafo bruh :)))
This comment, i love it xD
I need to play some HOI4 right now. Thanks for reminding lol!
HOI4 Player Pog
Man of culture I see
My grandfather was Yugoslav partisan and told me a story, when they capzured some Germans and that his officer ask them "why did you not surrender" and they said "our kaplar did not gave the order" thats how disciplined were Germans
They were other reasons too. Germany knew what atrocities it had done and allies won't forget it that's why they fought so hard in end even though they're going to loose cause they knew they will face consequences of those atrocities. That's why many German suicided and you know how Red army treated civilians when reaching Berlin. Same with japan
@@ShubhamMishrabro One big factor of the german fighting strength was the internal Unit cohesion. The Wehrmacht managed during most of the war to keep units from the same regions together, rarely rotating in soldiers from entirely different backgrounds. That achieved a high level of fighting strength since the individual soldiers fought for their comrade in the foxhole next to them. There are some modern studies about the cohesion factor. It's pretty interesting.
@@ShubhamMishrabro "Same with Japan" such a fucking vague statement. If you're gonna talk about German atrocities talk about Japanese ones too, they were worst than Germans.
@@BatCostumeGuy i didn't explained German atrocities nor japan. I just mentioned the word atrocities
@@roverrange3674 I will read it
Leadership, Discipline, Precision, Training, Planning, Organization, Equipment, Morale
uagh, thanks, now I don't have to watch the video :) Icouldn't stand the intro already, seems like they won't get to the point.
My dad fought in WW2 with the 147th combat engineers. He often spoke highly of the german's intelligence & technology.
+midnight rider
This doesn't surprise me, same is true vice versa. I work as Historian with a focus on Contemporary German History for the IFZ in München/Munich & also have Veterans in my Family, and they also all speak respectful of their former Enemies. I also talked to countless of WW2 Veterans from all the Countries, both in private & at Veteran Meetings.
It's funny how you have a hard time finding actual WW2 Veterans speaking as disrespectful & insulting about their former Enemies as pretty much a large amount of TH-cam Comments on WW2 related Videos.
Always makes me wonder how unaware most People are that f.e. American and German WW2 Veterans becoming close Friends, going together on War Cemetaries (of both Axis and Allies) to pay Respects was/is very common.
I basically grew up around Axis and Allied WW2 Veterans going fishing together here in Germany, have Beers and BBQ in the Summer, even tell eachother War Stories from their Side & Experience, as if they never tried to kill one another during the War.
Now compare this to any Comment Section on TH-cam about any WW2 related Video and a lot of Comments & Discussions you will find under these Videos.
That said, luckily it's not only such Comments under WW2 Videos but also the good kind like yours!
Prost & Cheers from the Berchtesgadener Land in the Bavarian Alps
@@chartreux1532:
Thanks for your reply. Generally speaking, that seems to be the case, but my dad's brother fought in the Pacific during WW2. Great guy, but i think he held a bit of a grudge against the Japanese because of witnessing kamikaze attacks and other brutal acts by the Japanese. He passed away last year. Damn I miss that generation.
@@midnightrider7648 Great stuff.
@@dr.debajyotibose2928:
👍thanks. Not a minute goes by that I don't miss them.
Patton was in awe of the germans, and regretted the destruction of germany, and claimed that we had fought the "wrong enemy". Then he was assassinated.
10:20 "Operation Uh was launched"
For those who don't know, it was supposed to say Operation Barbarossa but the audio glitched out. It made me chuckle though
Hitler: FUCK YEAH LET'S GOO OPERATION UHHHHH
@@BatCostumeGuy It would have been mighty convenient if Hitler had a stroke that day. ^^
@@Paludion Agree
Watch out for Operation Uh
I was confused I thought it was was taken out for some ridiculous reason.
"Made in Germany. You know the Germans always make good stuff."
Actually their tanks sucked ass, they broke down too much, also they had many different variants of tanks and their factories couldnt keep up...
Their soliders tho were effective and drugged up.
@@trivunkonjik7413 yet they managed to counquer most of Europe and bombed the fkc out of UK yea right
@@trivunkonjik7413 if you think German ww2 technology “sucked ass” then you’re not even worth debating
@@nickpapagiorgio9872 their tech wasnt better it was just their creativity, like putting radar and radio on everything.
fun fact, french tanks were actually stronger than german tanks
however i cant deny that the luftwaffe had better technology
@@AB-rv2lj USSR, USA, UK, France, etc needed to work together to defeat Germany alone. Lol. It proved how strong Germany was at that time.
Remark: Russia invaded Poland too. But England and France declared war only to Germany.
World wide Marxists only discuss the evils of Nazi Germany while downplaying the evils of the USSR.
it's all political they don't give a shit about people and even the soldiers
@@adityakumar4087 I thought you were a Nazi for a second I'm not used to seeing it as a Hindu symbol especially on WW2 videos 😭
@@adityakumar4087 Listen, You're disrespecting my Nation's pride -Tiranga by altering it's design and that's offensive. The symbol in middle of Tricolor must be Dharm chakra but you foolishly have replaced it with Nazi Haken cruez(Hooked cross) and mind you it's not Swastika.
So if you're in your right mind, then plz change your profile pic.
The soviet union was too dangerous cause of its resources. France's plan was to make a stalemate with germany to win in the long term so declaring war on Russia would make them lose because The soviets had all the resources and manpower they needed. As it turns out nothing would be different in france if the USSR was declared by the allies. But if the USSR joined against britain its labor force together with the germans and german technology would build a massive navy and airforce with the latest technology and with the manpower and resources of the soviets it would be easy to defeat britain if the preparations were done correctly. So after those considerations they didnt declare war which led to britain not surrendering and the soviets basically winning the war against germany. Also France and Britain made a treaty with poland but it said protection against germany not Russia Note: the french knew about the speed of the wehrmact so france knew a stalemate was its advantage. But with the german tactis and soviet help it wouldnt have any advantage over germany
I remember a little saying from my history professor when we covered WW2
“A German Panzer was worth 5 Sherman tanks, the Americans sent 6.”
Then, i remember a US officer apparently told his troops that if they saw a German gun they should dump their own and pick up the German one.
Damn bro. Cool.
I'm so sorry to say this, but your history professor said something really unfair and stupid. Sure, tigers and panthers were great machines, but they had some problems, like failing rate (look at eastern front) , being hard to repair, using too much fuel... Sure, they had superb armor and good firepower, but they were too costly for germans.
And no, german panzers (most likely panthers) werent worth 5 shermans. Panthers had better statistics on paper, but they were, for example, less flexible than shermans: due to German position, they were used mostly to fight other tanks. Because of that, one can't simply compare those machines: they were designed for a diffrent purpose, diffrent doctrine.
Oh, and about small arms. I'm not sure if the US officer told about modern guns or WW2 guns, but, eh, in the reality of ww II it wasn't that simple.
MP40 was a great gun, but it had its disadvandages. In my opinion, PPS (pulemiot sudayeva) was even better. They had Worse stats, but better reliability and they were easier to repair. MP40 and, generally speaking, german arms had one great disadvantage: complexity.
@@michadybalski6687 Did you try out the guns?
@@jozen5384 I've personally shot a K98, it's vastly overrated. Definitely nowhere near a Garand with more rounds and semi-auto or Lee-Enfield with similar characteristics but faster fire rate and twice as many rounds in the magazine.
I've only held the g43 and p08, but the g43 is reputable for being pretty garbage
Russia: "they had us in the first half not gonna lie." 😂😂
if 1v1, Germany will easily beat those all European countries and their allies including America and russia
K
I dunno about that.
Germany alone wouldnt have the resources to beat a lot of the allied countries alone really.
Britain is on a fortress with the english channel as its walls, America had the entire Atlantic ocean and the best aircraft carrier fleet in history and Russia’s industrial capability and size dwarfed Germany’s by triple fold. Germany doesn’t have anything to counter any of those.
Bruh Bruh
Point 1:
Britain DOMINATED the skies and the seas.
Germany’s land force could only land on Britain if aerial and naval superiority was achieved. Unfortunately for them, the battle of Britain already proved that Germany’s air force and navy was clearly inept and too underdeveloped to actually achieve dominance.
Point 2:
Hitler wasnt the cocky one. His generals were.
Hitlers plan was to take the caucasus and take the oil fields there, the German Generals however were very insistent that taking moscow as early as possible was the better option. It was only until November of the early 1940s did the Generals back down from their plans to take Moscow as quickly as possible since Germany ran out of petrol quicker than they anticipated.
Hitler only continued to order them to take moscow anyway as that mistake was brought by the generals on themselves.
Point 3:
Russia’s industrial infrastructure was left relatively intact and was relocated to siberia prior to operation Barbarossa. Meaning the soviets could still supply and arm more troops if they so wished, even if moscow was taken.
Plus, with the destruction of the Caucasus oil fields after the Stalingrad siege, Germany no longer had the fuel and supply it needed to overwhelm russia any longer than 1941. Meaning, their offensive had a very small deadline to be completed until the Soviets recover from their early losses.
Germany only wanted to fight a short and quick war with Russia as their supplies and men could not contend with the USSR’s vastly larger industrial complex. If the German army gave the soviet union just one month to breathe, the USSR could easily replace their losses and return even stronger.
Unfortunately for Germany, their forces simply didnt have the numbers to take all of russia in one momentum’s push. Russia simply had too much land and forces for that to happen.
Even with the west front command’s help, Germany still wouldnt be able to outnumber the Soviets and deliver the momentum Operation Barbarossa required to work.
Bruh Bruh
Germany never focused on Naval superiority because they lacked iron primarily. Not because of their enemies.
Even throughout WW2, Hitler had put significant focus on the Kriegsmarine and built a sizeable U-boat fleet even tho the army needed the iron and supplies put into those submarines. If the enemy was the main reason the Germans lost focus on Naval building, they would have never bothered to create development plans on the U-boats and Germany’s ill forgotten battleships/cruisers.
Germany was importing iron from neutral Sweden in the late 1930s but the Brits were able to stop the trade.
Without swedish steel imports, the hopes for Germany’s navy never came to fruition.
Additionally, Germany never seeked to dominate nor had the capability to destroy Britain with their air force either. Goering always insisted that he could take on the RAF, but his incompetence led to the RAF’s recovery. History has shown the Germany had neither a competent commander and a powerful industrial economy to support the Luftwaffe and they never would have due to the fact Goering, the idiot that he is, was in charge of the air force at the time.
Throughout the entire time, Germany seeked to eliminate Britain diplomatically and morally as a war in the air and skies was simply impossible given that the british eliminated Germany’s ability to get iron imports. No iron, no plane/ships for germany.
As for hitler, the ostfront command brought the issue upon themselves as I already stated.
Manstein’s and the German command’s over eagerness to end the war caused Germany to push towards Moscow when Hitler’s original directives were to push towards Stalingrad. The ostfront command only chickened out when supplies got low and the decision to abandon Army B and leave them to be the lone force to take the oil fields got delayed.
Hitler merely just allowed the ostfront command to face their own consequences for their incompetent decisions.
@@Fylnnn Many times Germany attacked Russia. But Russia always wins.
when something has the words "made in Germany", it means something. Still today.
Well because Germany is still economical powerhouse lot of Chinese factories actually use german made machines and small parts for their chips other than that car and food industries are enormous. Big food brands in the world are from Germany etc.
They are biggest economical power in Europe and even tho they don’t spend more than 2 precent GDP on military because of NATO they still hold major political power.
Today sure. But German products were sketchy at best for quite a long time as well.
@@mando_dablord2646 are you kidding? They were even better before. At least cars and appliances/equipments and tools
No wonder why the car I saw has a weird name. It was made in Germany
My grandfather had a medical issue so he was only a guard soldier. He guarded russian POWs in Norway. Allways told that was the best time of his live. All german and russian soldiers there were happy as hell, that they did not have to fight at the frontier. They were all buddies. Went together swimming, played football and tought each other songs from their homeland. In WW2 movies it allways looks like the soldiers from different nations hated each other. In reality most of them were just farmers and hard workers that got along quite well the moment an officier did not order them to kill each other.
Are you sure you are talking about the same germans and russians we know from ww2 ?
The first trying to exterminate russian people and the second, trying their dammest to survive the extermination ?
Yh? Tell that to the 2 million soviet POW that were starved to death and hurded like cattle into fields by your grandfather's colligues
@@tonyjoka2346 that.. literally has nothing to do with what he said
@@zero.Identity it did since the Germans had no respect for the Soviets and genocides them
@@tonyjoka2346Stalin starved way more of his own citizens than that 😂
*"I'm not defending German's technical superiority, I'm stating the fucking obvious"*
- Sun Tzu, art of based
-company of heroes some Russian soldier-
Germany wasn't technologically superior. Not even close.
- The British and Americans had superior radar, the single most important invention of the war.
- The Americans developed nuclear weapons.
- The British and Americans developed the proximity fuse, one of the most important inventions of the war that most people have never heard of.
- The Americans had the M1 Garand and Carbine, both of which were a vastly superior rifle to the German Mauser 98. (Yes, I'm aware of the StG 44, but this rifle was developed too little, too late.)
- The British and Americans both developed long ranged four engine heavy bombers. The American B-29, by itself, was an incredible technological achievement.
- The Scotts invented modern antibiotics in 1942, which was quickly pushed to the front lines, greatly enhancing the recovery of wounded Allied soldiers.
- America invented the "walkie-talkie" (AM SCR-536), a stunning enhancement in aiding infantry on the battlefield.
- While Germans were using mostly horses and donkeys to run supply lines, Americans/British were using Jeeps.
- ...and so on.
The only really important tech advantage Germany had was jet fighters, and maybe submarines, though the latter was easily counterbalanced by Allied sub-hunting technology.
@@ikesteroma As for developing nuclear weapons there were many scientist and technicians from many countries like Britain, Hungary, Denmark, Italy and the Americans . This was an international multicultural multinational group who developed the atomic bomb! Basic research and formed a team! Yes America provided the facilities and money but the brains came from many nations including America and Germany! Names like Fermi, Selard, Teller, Oppenheimer, Heisenberg. As Hitler called nuclear science “Jewish Physics!” and poo poo’d it!
@@alanfenick1103 Yes, I know. I'm well aware that many allied innovations were developed by shared research between America and Britain.
Either way, Germany was nowhere close to being technologically superior.
@@ikesteroma I think the proximity fuse and the radar were the technologies that won the war.
Fun fact: the term "Blitzkrieg" (or lightning war as it's english translation) was never really used by the German High command with it only ever being mentioned once or twice in the diaries of some high ranking generals. The term was coined by the Allies. The correct term used by the Germans was "Bewegungskrieg" (or Maneuver warfare as it's english translation). So while using the term Blitzkrieg is in a way technically correct by most peoples standards, the term Bewegungskrieg is far more accurate.
Nerrrrrrd
@@joshuabayles3141 YUP
Very interesting, thank you.
I like this fact, whoever i would still call it blitzkrieg because I'm afraif my tongue would tie itself like a pretzel by just reading that
@@REEEPROGRAM XD I know what you mean, it took me a lot of practice to get it write and I still don't
You neglected to mention the dire situation of the German logistics. Germany was running an oil deficit for pretty much the entire war, and though the oil fields of Romania helped, they still needed many more times that amount to just break even. This meant that most of the German army was on foot, and that during the invasion of the Soviet Union there was a stop-start pattern to the attacks where the Panzer groups had to wait for the rest of the army to catch up. This is also why winter was such an issue; Germany had winter supplies, but logistical bottlenecks kept them from reaching the front.
Very true. Well said
And Swedish steel (*khm-khm*)
Right, im pretty sure the Germans had trouble with their fuel freezing in the russian winter. Shows you how cold it gets there. And I complain when it gets below freezing one degree.
Germany had a major oil deficit because they stupidly went to war with the major suppliers in the world. This can't be used as an excuse because it was a decision they made and the reason other countries don't willfully throw themselves into surprise attacks against 1/3 of the world's population. The entire logistic situation is a sign of german ignorance and incompetence and isn't merely "bad luck" or a bad situation. It is why aggressive wars are insane. Imagine America going to War with Saudia Arabia because they don't like Islam, then complaining that they can't fuel their tanks and say that is why they lost. Insane.
@@orclover2353 they went for russia to get fuel fields by winning the war
One of the biggest factor you forgot to mention was desperation, from everything that I've heard & studied, the Germans were proud & patriotic. Looking at the state their country was in after ww1 really did drive them over the edge.
Accurate
Have u seen the banned documentaries? Theyre like 6-10 hours long goes in depth no propaganda
or maybe it was crystal meth what drove them xD
@@mochalo4912 meth aka baba as it's known in my place. 😊
Baba had provided some serious impetus to the 3rd Reich.
@@mochalo4912 Not true. False propaganda trying to slander Germans. There was so much propaganda during the war it was sick.
Just look at movies like Schindler's List and so many other famous Hollywood films that are pure fiction and fantasy.
None of that stuff ever happened, and it's only to depict Germans as heartless, evil monsters.
"German freezing to death trying to blitzkrieg Soviet"
Napoleon: "First time?"
The irony is that Hitler himself visited Napoleon graveyard when marching trough Paris after conquered it and ended up making the same tactical mistake as him.
Mongols: Noob
@@Cludiulogic87 fr bro
Attack with all forces Moskau take the City make Castle out of it
Stay in the winter there and let Russia bleed out attacking
@@Cludiulogic87 hitler was idiot and big reason why germany lost ww2
6:45 The Germans field manuals or military though never themselves called it Blitzrkrieg. This was done by the foreign press who liked the "German word" blitzkrieg.
The Germans called it "bewegungskrieg" which means maneuver warfare.
@@OstrobothnianGaming Bewegungskrieg especially in contrast to the "Stellungskrieg", positional warfare of WW1. Another term would be "Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen" ,combined arms.
Yes, and when the Soviets got their act together, they used their own version of that (called: Deep Battle Art of Warfare) to defeat the German invader. Oddly enough, the fulcrum moment of that happened when Germany was forced to adopt a more defensive (Stellungs) posture. Soviet Stavka (basically J.Stalin) started to allow his generals more flexibility and freedom of operations, while his opponent A.Schicklegruber (aka. A. Hitler) tightened his grip on the Wehrmacht and more relied on his (rather unilateral and sometimes but not always nonsensical) approach in dictating even the minutest details in the German Wehrmacht operations. The German obedience to "Befehl ist befehl" mentality eventually succumbed to the Soviet more flexible and ruthless execution of battle campaigning.
@@Centurion101B3C Moron hitler wouldn't even give his eastern troops winter supplies (as it would be bad for morale, and it was an ultimatum).
Hitler's stupidity was so great, that later in the war, Churchill wouldn't help any "assassinate hitler" plans, as then someone who wasn't a complete moron may have taken over.
@@OstrobothnianGaming yep. Used in the Austro and Franco-Prussian war.
My my, the animation has undoubtedly gone better
Steve Minecraft
@@darius6616 Doge Japan
@@fntatn i think cheems is from hong kong
Thx
@@darius6616 Oops
My favorite part of the comment section in every single video of every single war, is the amount of historians, veterans, and experts you come across. It's impressive. Almost everyone has such vast knowledge about all of it. Just amazing
Also how these historians just brush aside every single point made in the video and claim the complete opposite, without providing any arguments besides words like "actually", "stupid", "retarded" etc.
yeah yeah
)
This is where you improve your knowledge
History buffs hang out in these videos
One of my history teachers said something to the effect of "Blitzkrieg was highly effective and relied on fast vehicles, and the Russians stopped it by throwing themselves at those vehicles until the tires or treads couldn't continue." It's a little hyperbolic, but it really drives home the point of how many Russians died during the operation to stop it.
Important to note, Blitzkrieg was never a real doctrine.
This is just nazi propaganda. Read "Blitzkrieg Legende" before you clown yourself any further with lies perpetuated by Nazi generals after WW2.
@@AodhMacAuliffe no? U are brainwashed
@@AodhMacAuliffe even allies that won ww2 gives credit andrecognition for brilliant tactics mastermind from great general like guderian, Mastein etc
@@alifimran9049 Yes, because they only heard their part of the story. Read an actual book. Germany had no chance at winning and the high command was riddled with idiots.
This a German High command in a nutshell
Ah Monsieur Oktan with his cash to buy Moskowien
Money...
A nutshell very aptly describes them.
th-cam.com/video/MJjTqLVs2r4/w-d-xo.html
Do the Video about Benito Mussolini's March On Rome in 1922
Yeah, interesting topic.
Hope he'll include events leading up to it.
His failed socialist movement, financial crisis, bad governing, how Italy didn't get parts of Croatia as they thought they would.
Entire story is pretty cool.
@Nominee For Sealand’s Chancellor he wanted to create a neo roman empire
Spoiler, some modern italian historians or history teachers speculate that all the march stuff was just a public stunt because he didn't want to appear weak as he was technically appointed tacitly by the king because he found him amusing. Also he started with socialist stuff to gain popularity but when he he got in power he basically beat workers up if they dared to have a strike.
And don't forget to include how the people hanged him & his mistress, desecrating their corpses afterwards.
German (and Prussian before that) military was always very impressive and admired.
Do you mean when Prussia lost to Napoleon or the time when Prussia nearly lost to Russia and only by luck Frederik (most certainly not that Great) came out on top in the 7 years war? Or the time when Prussia wasn't able to win against France without the help of Bavaria and secretly gifting them Neuschwanstein? Prussia wasn't impressive and also not really admired, it was made fun about, it was an army with a country and not a country with an army. Other nations like that are North Korea and such. Nobody admires North Korea.
@@dabozzcrgBattle of Rossbach (1757): During the Seven Years' War, Frederick the Great of Prussia defeated a combined French and Austrian army, establishing Prussia as a major European power.Battle of Leuthen (1757): Another significant battle in the Seven Years' War, Frederick the Great's Prussian forces decisively defeated a larger Austrian army.Battle of Torgau (1760): In the final years of the Seven Years' War, Prussia, alongside its British allies, achieved a victory against the Austrians and Russians.Battle of Valmy (1792): During the French Revolutionary Wars, Prussian forces under the Duke of Brunswick were defeated by the French revolutionary army. While this was a Prussian defeat, it marked a turning point in French history.Battle of Jena-Auerstedt (1806): Prussia suffered a significant defeat at the hands of Napoleon's French forces in this battle, which led to the occupation of Prussia.Battle of Leipzig (1813): Prussia, along with other coalition forces, achieved victory over Napoleon's army, marking a major turning point in the Napoleonic Wars.Battle of Waterloo (1815): While the Battle of Waterloo is often associated with the defeat of Napoleon, Prussian forces under Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher played a crucial role in the victory alongside the British.
First Schleswig War (1848-1851): Prussia, along with its allies, achieved victory over Denmark, gaining control of the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein.Austro-Prussian War (1866): Also known as the Seven Weeks' War, Prussia decisively defeated the Austrian Empire, leading to the dissolution of the German Confederation and the establishment of the North German Confederation under Prussian leadership.Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871): Prussia, along with its allies in the North German Confederation, achieved a resounding victory over France, leading to the unification of Germany and the proclamation of the German Empire in 1871.Battle of Gravelotte (1870): This battle was a pivotal moment in the Franco-Prussian War, where Prussian forces, led by Helmuth von Moltke, defeated the French, leading to the encirclement of the French army at Metz.Battle of Sedan (1870): In this battle, Prussian forces under King Wilhelm I and Chancellor Otto von Bismarck captured Emperor Napoleon III of France, a significant event in the war.
As you can see, Prussia won many important battles and wars.
This is a fact which is mostly overlooked, it was also a tradition within Germany (especially Prussia) to be a good soldier.
Thanks for sharing this kind of videos 😊 Greetings from Germany 🇩🇪!
Welcher bundestatt bisse auch hesse?
Uraa
@@hessen5498 Ja, Frankfurt am Main ♥️
@@f.j.4795 lol geil einfach same wusste doch das du hesse bist
Should be called Panzerland tho lol
3:30 Hitler was never elected Chancellor, he was appointed to the position by Hindenburg
You must of felt really proud pointing that out
average i watch oversimplified viewer
@@Gruñón92 he meant to write 'must have felt'. its just a typo
He was first appointed but at the following election he was elected.
@@gerhardswihla1099 No, he got not elected. He just forbid every other party, so in the elections, his party was obviously the only one, who got voted.
Thanks, taking notes for when I plan to give this a try myself
Just inform us k
Lol run
Study “The art of War”
Hail Joe!
Have you conquered Poland now?
War tactics and strategy is obviously very important. As a US Army veteran I can tell you that the moral of the soldiers on the frontlines is just as important. Regardless of what was said after the Nazi party fell. German soldiers were extremely motivated and well trained. I hate to say this because I believe German’s were brained washed. I think at the time of WW2 the soldiers 100% believed that what they’re doing was going to make the world better. Also, German’s were pissed on how they were treated after WW1. I believe that its also why Israel is nothing to play with because of the holocaust.
As a German I can assure you they were brainwashed. Even my grandparents can't think totally clear about this topics today. When it comes to the hate of jews, it didn't start with the Nazi party, they only brought the hate to another level. Christians hated jews since hundreds of years, Martin Luther was one of their biggest enemies (f.e. in the book "Of the jews and their lies") and the Nazis partly justified the holocaust with quotes of Luther. And Hitler said, he's only doing what the church is doing since 500 years, only better.
I think the briliant generals and the high level of training were also important factors.
Patton and Eisenhower were more brilliant。
The leadership was the result of the militarized society Germany had become since 1870 and the resulting Prussian officer corps. The Germans studied their WW1 experience extensively so as not to make the same mistakes and put it all into practice. Their training and leadership reflected this, meanwhile the British and French were busy trying hard to forget world war 1 but were absolutely sure another war would be fought the same way i.e. trench warfare again. The Germans knew tanks made static warfare null and void and set about proving it -
@@robertmaybeth3434 Well，Germany defeated Russia in WW1。I think Germany made new mistakes in the USSR in WW2。The cruelty to the civilian population was both a crime and a mistake。
@@robertmaybeth3434 The Germans still lost。Hitler had the idea that the Germans would win because he thought they were superior，but Hitler neglected logistics and strategy。
The main reason the Germans were so effective initially was nobody else was actually prepared for war , the first real opposition the Germans came up against was the British Royal Air Force and they LOST , the advanced and worlds first integreted radar system proved too much for the Germans to deal with , then they took on the Russians who were woefully under prepared but as soon as the Russians got their act together guess what ....they LOST !! then they decided to take on the worlds biggest industrial power the USA and that really was the end , so in conclusion they were totally ineffective even with a head start mainly because they were plain f**king stupid .
Thanks for the video I always used to wonder how Italy was ineffective and how Germany was effective in ww2
Italy shouldve stayed out of the first world war. It wasnt real empire yet and yet it took on a second hand empire in face of A&H and took shitty loses and couldnt capitalise on that later. Shoildve tried to trade what it could for high prices and gain land for doing peace. No1 will give them high quantities but gainz are gainz. In ww2 they were being driven off by not an apex Balkan land army so what does that speak for their readiness? Greece was up to 7 times less populated and didnt had tradition of raising as large army in % as other balkanites. Italy otherwise shouldve tried to maintain its holding in Anatolia too rather expand. If staying out of war then after war they can be in better position to start building an empire. Absolutely no1 among the big powers will want to have a war so Italy can go in Balkans, Africa and Anatolia and no1 will be stopping them.
Italy had worse technology and a lower population. They didnt have the vast territory germany soon took either. There were also many opposed to mussolini, unlike hitler.
Germany and Italy are the contrasts of socialism, while they both agreed to the supremacy of the state over the multinational revolution, the approach to economics was different the Italians consolidated every industry into 6 messy sectors ran by corrupt politicians with loyalty to Mussolini. Hitlers Germany barly could wrestle anything away from the private sector so used fear and brutal punishments to frighten every sector into performing it's best. Germany could have had crappy tanks for sent nearly a million men into Africa to be captured by the allies but Germany had the policy of command the same way as the private sector the best or most ruthless won. Such was the commanders that the best and most ruthless often won making Germany efficent. Also the propaganda of germany was so strong defeats rarely stockpiled into routs. The Italians never really had a high socalist party, and many joined the facist side, so the moderates in contrast never backed the state. The Reds several times seized key germanic spots including Bavaria at one point and the army was powerless, frie kore or free corps showed up under no loyalty to the democratic state and put it down. It was clear the communists wanted red Germany to take over the world by locking arms with USSR, weather they believed in the super state is unknown. But the right wing which believed in kings backed Hindenburg and the conservatives where appalled by the communists, when faced with the destruction of german culture they chosen to double down on german culture. The socialists of the Nazi argued the state and germany wasn't just the best it was superior and offered a way forward without destroying everything german, however unlike Spain the right wing elements in the army would be brainwashed to believe Hitler was a God and the new king while conservatives would be later bullied by any means necessary after Catholics and Lutheran priests became a nuisance. Lastly germany imprisoned any decenters so successfully the state had no effective opposition, the Italian state lacked much backing and when it was clear the army couldn't or wouldn't go forward any more the Italian people jumped ship and overthrew the noise of the facist government.
also Italy had deficit of every strategic resource, iron, oil, rubber, coal, brain
The Italians managed to invent Nutella during world war II. Even when chocolate became expensive and scarce due to rationing in Europe.
They were efficient, buddy, they were awesome!
The Germans had fewer and less effective pound for pound tanks, but they also had widespread use of radios in them, and the tactics used in combination with instant communication. They also used combined arms very well against poorly prepared enemies.
Actually only about 20% of the German Army was modern and mechanized. They were still using horses to move supplies. The British and American Armies were fully mechanized. With that and the USSR the Germans had zero chance.
The germans have invented a similiar system to the CROWS. Which allows you to fire a top mounted MG from the inside.
Less effective? Tiger Tank killed your toy tanks. 🤟
@@Haberfeldtreiber369 Yes, but for every Tiger the Germans built the Americans could build 100 Sherman's AND 10 transport ships to ship them to Europe AND enough destroyers and jeep aircraft carriers to escort the convoy of transport ships. Oh, and during that time the Soviets would produce a dozen, or whatever, T34s themselves. Germany was finished at Stalingrad. In a war of production it was Uber fucked.
@@shrimpflea thats only at the start of ww2
Germany would have won if wasn’t Hitler, Hitler ignored Germans generals
Is it just me, or the germans really like Napoleon’s Speed and quick decisive battles tactics/strategies.
That would explain why hitler lost against ussr just like napoleon did
Napoleon lost in Russia too。
Napoleon just lost because of the Russian winter. The Nazis couldn't even plan a war the right way, when Stalin moved the whole war industry to the Ural in just 6 months their plans were literally finished making them unable to maintain progress, other tactics/priorities would've been successful, but luckily the GröFaZ was Hitler himself who knew nothing about war tactics besides Blitzkrieg a tactic originated in WW1
@@derunfassbarebielecki No one loses because of the weather。The weather is the same for both sides。
@@user-jq2iz9zn4p If one side didn't take the right clothing to the battlefield the weather is the issue. Blitzkrieg is a pretty vulnerable tactic, even the slightest slowdown can break the whole frontline. Thats why the Nazis were dumb af, incompetent to plan wars further than the next step.
3:30 incorrect, he was NOT ELECTED as chancellor by vote, but appointed as chancellor by the executive.
true
So it wasn't called Operation Barbarossa it was Operation UH the whole time. Makes sense. That would be a reasonable response to anyone who isn't insane who looked at this plan for just a second.
It glitched, if you weren't aware.
@@omega0195 I know I was just joking around
@@brandonarmienti7734 you better be.
@@omega0195 Gonna call it Operation Uh now out of spite.
@@mando_dablord2646 you're wrong
Greetings from Germany. very interesting topic the accent is also very cool.
Nobody had the balls to stop them from the very beginning. They let Germany continue to build and take.
Everyone was fighting? The hell do you mean no balls, poland fought, Denmark, Belgium, France, UK, they only lasted 1 year before they started loosing heavily
@@Palaemon907 think he meant the British and French did not attack Germany during their initial expansion, they waited until it was too late.
@@jfloes90 Exactly. Czechoslovakia was allied with France and UK, but France and UK betray them to avoid war and give Czechoslovakia to Germany on silver platter. No one suggest that stolen lands should be returned to Czech and Slovaks.
I mean when you lose several generations of men because of egos and treaties just years ago, most probably aren’t gonna start another war over production of an army.
Dont forget greece , pushed italy back - after that germans invaded.. a tiny country resisted for 4 years the occupation..
The real major factor of german army's efficence was their experience. They were able, contrary to other great powers in europe, to test their new tactics, strategies and materials. First with the Condor legion in Spain (were they also saw the importance of radios). Then with the annexion of Austria. Yeah, even if Ausria was diplomaticaly annexed, their throw their armored divisions to control the ground and muzzle the potnetial rebelions. They experienced the difficulty to supplie and maneuver such formations so they created a oil supplie service and improved their ability to use their armored divisions. It was also the case in Czechoslovakia. Furthermore they really tried their tactics on Poland, versus an less dangerous ennemy (dispite that, they sustain heavy losses in Poland). All these experiences permit them to build a verry effective force, because their military theory was put to practice, so corrected and improved to face the reality of the terrain. Cooperation between all the branches of the army was also improved due the these expermences (mainly cooperation between ground forces and airforces). The idea that german equipment is better than other country's one is not totally true. In terms of armor and fire power, french tanks were known as better. But german ones were all equiped with radios, and were more ergonomic (with more than one man in the turret of the tank, wich permit the commander of the tank to focus on his commanding and observing role --> an other lesson of Spain). They learned from their defeat during the first world war, while the allies stayed on their positions (surely it's easy to criticize now, but from their point of view the allie's late war tactics were totally superior to german ones), so they were able to theorize new tactics based on allie's ones, and the thing that permit the german to build a military adapted to their new tactics is the fact that they rebuilt their army from nothing. There's a lot more to say one this subject but I don't want to write a book in comment :p
Very solid points all around and a fair perspective.
Also don't forget the moral of the soldiers through massive propaganda.
What should also not be forgotten is the fact that they robbed huge amounts of money, gold and other resources from the humans they have murdered.
Amazing points, very interesting man. Opened new perspectives for me. :)
@Nilon yep and i talked about the tactical befefits of their experience but it also leads to the groth of veterants in the army, wich is a good perspective ;)
PS : we might consider that these facts are true for the early war perdiod but the perspectives are really not the same for the late war perdiod (the german army's peak of efficience is know to be in 1941, at the start of barbarossa).
Merci Jean-Pierre, bcp plus éclairant que le reportage sur le haricot de paimpol
Fantastic visualization of the Panzer break out. That really helped me understand the mechanics behind the Weirmacht's ability to consistently get through the oppositions line.
@Top Secret . Cool story.
@Top Secret and meth...
The Panzers didn＇t get through the Red Army lines surrounding Berlin。
@@user-jq2iz9zn4p that's because you can't feed tanks methamphetamine like you can infantrymen
Hitler wasn't elected, he was nominated Kanzler.
"Russian counter attack was well thought out and executed" Yea I suppose Stalin thought long and hard about how little he cares for his people 😂😂
😂
"Millions of you will die and that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make"
@@roberttheiss6377 "Some of you may die, but thats a sacrafice I'm willing to make"
That and he asked Roosevelt for millions of dollars, oil, food and material including weapons and ships. USA gave him all that during Lend-Lease because without that the Germans would of made it to the Middle East oil fields and then it would of been game over for soviets.
@@premieroptimist1277 IF the Germans had reached the oil fields, they may have won the war. Their only fault was their lack of oil. With oil they could mass produce some damn good tanks, submarines to destroy the British Navy and aircraft to regain their air superiority. But, alas, the 35,000 T-34 were too much for the German front line
10:22 “operation …. was launched” pretty important detail to screw up in editing. Barbarossa is the name for anyone who may be wondering.
The name is in the subtitles.
@@auroraflos2498 I don’t think the average, fluent English speaker turns on the subtitles.
@@johnnyc4717 I was on mobile, so the captions were turned on automatically, I think. I just wanted to point out that the name was in the subtitles.
Maybe he did that intentionally to avoid demonitization by yt.. I saw a video before where they used iron cross instead of swastika symbol. Im not sure myself, just a thought.
3:30 As far as I know, Hitler never earnd the absolute majority. Just 37% of the people voted for the NSDAP. He was promoted through Hindenburg in 1933.
not only Hindenburg, but also the votes of conservative and liberal MPs in Parliament, who opposed the next two larger parties (socialists and communists) far more than they opposed the Nazis. This is often airbrushed from official narratives of history
And: The NSDAP was NOT a "right" but a"left" party- The National Socialist German Workers Party... It is historically wrong to say, Hitler was politically right- winged. The Nazis were in the same side side as the communists just under another colour and in a more nationalist manner...The so called right conservatives were one of Hitlers declared political enemies...
@@Solihull88 No, this is a conspiracy theory. The right conservatives were not Hitlers enemies. They wanted to bring back a monarchy and so gave the power to Hitler (lock for von Papen, Brüning). He was also heavily supported by the heavy industrialists.
The only slightly "communist" in the NSDAP was the SA leadership, but they got killed in 1934 by Hitler.
Hitler also said, that the communists and socialists are the worst and he tried to end the communism overall.
And whoch "communist" laws did Hitler make, when he was in power?
@@kwtr1609 Der Idee der NSDAP sind wir die deutsche Linke... Nichts ist uns verhasster als der rechtsstehende nationale Besitzbürgerblock"
Quelle: Joseph Goebbels 1931 Der Angriff
@@Solihull88 Utter claptrap. Lie on lie on lie
Respect from Bulgaria for our brave German fighting brothers and sisters from the WW1 and WW2 🇧🇬🇩🇪!!!!
Never Forget… 🙏🏻
You are an honrable bulgarian who knows the truth about ww2.Thanks for your comment
Tactical genius in charge of high quality divisions coupled with speed. Their enemies assumed the war would be like the one before mostly defensive because of it being only 20 years difference. They understood that the new tech was better suited for offensives and prepared far before the rest not letting their advantage go to waste.
Their enemies were also not ready for war and they were
If they hadn't attacked when they did, their offensive could have bogged down and it would have become a war of attrition which Germany was not going to win
Accept for the battle of Britain, 303 not to mention Monte Cassino.
@@jamesricker3997 Germany went into the war with no oil and no money... It was going to be a war of attrition no matter what.
@The One This entire comment section is full of fucking neo nazis and you're part of it...
Germany lost as soon as they thought they could take on the world. Everyone just needed time to actually prepare and then it went downhill for them.
@@alexlaw1892 You forgot FOOD.
Your videos are great, keep up the great work
They armed and trained their armies before everyone else while also engaging in a agressive style of fighting in order to make use of their starting advantage.
Yes! And taking all those smaller countries individually would minimise losses while giving them more soldiers and factories etc. Eg. They lost 2000 men taking Norway, but over 5000 norwegians joined the german army.
Countries like hungary, romania, bulgaria, croatia region would be very supportive of germany and are often overlooked.
yeah and doctrine was a huge one. Blitzkrieg, along with radios gave them a huge advantage over countries like France in 1940
@@godlovesyou1995 Because their value in terms of fighting force was negligible. Even their biggest ally, Italy, was a liability most of the time. The SS-Divisions made up of foreigners were usually pretty weak. So were the Armies of the other Axis powers. For example it were the units of supporting nations that held the flanks at Stalingrad where the Sowjets forced the attack and achieved encirclement.
The French,British and Polish armies were trained and equiped. The reason germany won the battle of France was because of Luck and the allied airforce being sleepy
It is true but for west Europe mainly. The Soviets knew what future will be. Their army was getting experience here and there too. The great purge is either false in quantity or treason at its finest. In west I got a conspiracy theory. The west allowed Germany to win there. They waited for Germany to do what it wants. If they had attacked when it was most convenient Germany wouldve wasted a lot of time on home soil before it could potentially go for Paris. Also German tanks werent better than French tanks.
My grand dad was in the WW2 he fought with the 21st Maori battalion. Like most of ANZAC they were frontline and were the sheep led to be slaughtered first. He was one of the very few that returned. Was advised by my Father never to speak to him about the war. As a curious 6 year old I asked him and he would respond always telling me its not something you want to ever go through. He told me a number of stories
It took my father 40 years to process his youth and the development of the war, where his father was lost in captivity after end of war; mainly by endless watching historical TV war documentaries, which at the time I did not understand.
Huge appreciation needed for the animations.
Mission command. The flexibility given to ncos and lower level officers to make their own decisions on how to go about achieving their objectives was a key factor in the Heer's effectiveness imo.
After Kursk the Red Army was more effective。
@@user-jq2iz9zn4p What? Ähm no! The germans still inflicted more casualities to the red army then the red army did to them. There are very few occasions when the red army didn't lost more men then the Wehrmacht!
@@tizi087 But the Red Army still won。And the Wehrmacht still lost。 At the end of the war the Wehrmacht soldiers became POWs。
@@tizi087 At the end of the war the Wehrmacht became POWs。 POWs are lost men。
@@user-jq2iz9zn4p yeah but you dont need to be more effective to win a war. In the end the soviets won, thats vorrect but they lost more men and Equipment than the Wehrmacht making the Wehrmacht more effective
Effectiveness means to inflict more loses than receiving loses yourself, kt doesnt matter if you win or Lose to have a high effectivness
The Institution known as the "German General Staff" and it's ideas of "Institutionalized Excellence" had a lot to do with the German Army's post Napoleon successes. This core of highly trained professional officers(truly the first of it's kind ever) was what fundamentally changed the German Army into the Juggernaut we see in the world wars.It was so effective that it was one of the things prohibited by the Versailles treaty,but the Germans got around that by renaming it the office of Training or some such.Couple this with the emphasis on innovation at the squad and platoon levels(again unseen in the mid 1800's) was extremely revolutionary and extremely effective.
innovation at the squad and platoon levels: called Auftragtaktik in German, Was started 1807 by Calusewitz in the Eastern German provinces, and perfected by the Imperial Russian Army against Napoleon in 1812. It is described in great detail by Clausewitz notes / diaries on this war, edited and published by his wife after Clausewitz death.
His advice and observations are very detailed and -sensible, going down to the storage of flower to feed the troops.
His prose is very direct and sarcastic, nearly untranslatable I would judge.
Germany still lost 2 world wars lmao
The German General Staff was a mess and did not have the proper intelligence to even start a war, when they attacked Russia they knew nothing about the Russian strength or their industrial might.
No proper plan was made or kept to which was their downfall.
@@johntruman4397 the fuck? have you ever informed yourself? thats the biggest bullshit i have ever heard. not to mention that the secrete service they had was unrivaled
Thanks for the tips
My grandad was in the Kings Shropshire light infantry. He fought and stormed monte casino, he didn’t speak much about the war but after researching that battle I can understand why
No. In the 1939, at the beginning of the war, the German tanks were inferior to the French, to the British and to the Russian tanks. It's a well-known fact. The German tanks kept improving during the war, and their number, the number of the Tiger, KingTiger & Co., was nowhere near to those needed, other than being fragile and... it's more complicated than what people think.
Yup. The supposed superiority of Germany in WII is nothing but a myth. Germans had a few wunderwaffen but lots of horse-drawn supply lines.
I would argue the German tanks in 1939-40 were the best in the world while at the end of the war, they were only slightly better in some ways than the allies tanks with allied tanks being better in other ways. The Chieftain talks a lot about how the panzer 3 was likely the best tank in the world before the Sherman came out. While the French tanks may have had better armor and sometimes guns, and a lot of the times this wasn’t even the case, the crew layout of 5 men in very ergonomic positions and the much better vision of all positions but the commander especially, as well as the radios allow German tanks in 1939-40 to be much more effective than the French.
@@SgtBagel1 Adding to that was the fact that most Allied tanks early war used flags, hand signals, runners, and other outdated means of communication, while all German tanks had a 2 way radio, making the coordination of German armor vastly superior.
The bottom line is that the Germans won through a superior *doctrine* and leveraged their forces more effectively than the allies.
A glaring example of this was the French dispersing their superior tanks as infantry support pieces, and not forming as many tank divisions as the Germans did. They simply misallocated a lot of their resources.
In fact, the only area the Germans had a decided advantage both technically and numerically was in the Air. Outside of that, the allied nations were supposed to win on paper. Their strategy was brilliant though, and they simply leveraged their forces better in the end.
It isnt a well known fact btw everyone thinks that the german tanks were the best
So, this war makes sense - from the German perspective. If you see their history, prior to the formation of the German Empire, Prussians took the exact same approach to nation-building. They engaged in decisive conflicts with neighboring nations such as France and Austria and defeated them in detail to secure their place in Central Europe.
If Germany decided not to attack Russia. And Japan doesn’t attack the US too early. Scary stuff
You forgot about the German War College. One mistake the Entente made when writing the Versailles treaty was not neutering the old Prussian Academy. This is why their Army was so competent in both wars. They could draw on literally hundreds of years of refined institutional knowledge, experience, and planning going back to Fredrick the Great of Prussia. This is what produced leaders like Erwin Rommel and Heins Guderian.
yeah but the "Instructors" weren't the best and bullying was common. i wouldn't be giving them too much credit.
@@captainpinky8307 They made good officers & soldiers though.
This actually makes sense. They're leadership hard carried them throughout the war. But that also only went so far as well. They ran into problems that neither the leadership or shitstache could deal with.
@@mando_dablord2646 Your dang right they did. Though when one thinks about it, what happens if you give little stach the epiphany that he can't beat big stach in a short walk-in campaign and he instead continues the pact for another year or so? We saw just what Croutany could do to the world's leading land power after 8 months of proper preparations. Especially when they determined their performance in the Polish campaign to be less than adequate.
"Why was the German Army so Effective and strong in World War 2?"
Because (when Germany still had the abilities to do so) the German Army educated its personnel to a higher standard than anybody else. More thorough, multitask capable and trained one level above the initial appointed rank.
i oppose - it was power in numbers plus they gave them pervitin so they can carry on walking 7 days without fatigue - it worked best in 1939 and 1940 but then logistics plus reaction of allies resluted in 1945
Imagine if the Americans, in 1933 decided to invade Europe, and they spent 6 years developing armaments, doctrine, and training officers and soldiers...can you imagine the quality of troops and equipment that would bombard the continent. Only the germans, starting in the 1924, planned for an offensive war...their economy and military structure was built for one goal. To get revenge for 1918. This was before the nazis. They therefore had a huge advantage in preparation and time, and because they planned for an offensive war they developed offensive doctrine. This also explains why they were so pathetic in the open ocean when confronted with the Americans and British...those two nations planned to dominate via their navy, and invested heavily, even in the interwar years. The Americans had ZERO plans for another land war, and therefore invested nothing into development of a land army. To think that in 1 year after entering the war the Americans could land infantry and tanks to fight an enemy that had been preparing for 8 years is more amazing than anything the germans did. People forget that all of europe thought the great war was the last war, except for the germans. They planned for the 2nd war when the first one ended.
two ranks higher, not one. And the Pervitin thing is so overblown it's unreal. Stop.
The british army was much better trained, they didn't have 3 to 5 million soldiers tho, Germany was absolutely not highly trained.
@@orclover2353 yeah so pretty much the germans were just more prepared, which was evident enough. chamberlain was so focused on peace and france had such a shitshow of a military because of how arrogant they were.
I've been waiting for someone to explain this to me
samee
I'd say it's an extremely general explanation that ommits a lot of factors.
The first is that the Germans in each of their big campaigns at the beginning of war, faced enemy that was more or less obsolete, disorganized and even unprepared.
In case of Poland one thing is that we didn't have sufficient numbers of tanks and airplanes, and the latter were obsolete. So as orginization of most of the army except for maybe one experimental tank unit.
But the biggest problem was that; 1. The general defense plan was never prepared and commanders had to improvise, 2. The country was penetrated by German spies and saboteurs, 3. The army was mobilised in about 50% in the state chaos due to repeated announced and called off mobilizations. Why mobilizations were called off? Because Great Britain pushed Poland to call mobilization off. 4. Polish borders were very long and thus difficult to defend. A rational decision would be to fall back and form a ring of defense deep inside the country, and wait for the Allies in such state. But Polish leaders were afraid that if they wouldn't fight for all lands, a Monachium scenario would repeat itself and the Allies would ask Poland to give undefended lands to Germany. So from the start Poland was not aiming to fight effectively, but aiming to show that certain lands were important for them. Also mind that on 17th of September when situation was for Poles was bad, but they still had some significant reserves, we were attacked by the Soviet Union.
France had several problems as well. The biggest mistake they made, was obviously they ignored the route through Ardennes, although they had done an experiment proving the tanks could go through there.
The structure and fighting tactics of the French army were obviously obsolete. Big part of their air force was obsolete as well. French also had terrible trouble with coordinating their attacks. Their tanks would attack without protection from the air force, and sometimes even without infantry. To call artillery support, French officers had to fill in a form, and send a soldier on a bicycle.
The German success happened greatly thanks to the fact, that tanks would not only break through the front. They would search for the weakest point in defences, and then rally through the country, and French were unable to track their positions. French command officers would often realise position of German tankgs when they saw them in front of their command centers.
But the reason France fell so quickly was mainly because of political decision to surrender. France still had significant reserves and soldiers in good spirits and could fight for much longer, but it just chose not to fight.
With Soviet Union, Germans had several factors of advantage. Not only Stalin killed lots of valuable officers just a few years earlier and new ones were very poorly trained. The Soviet air force was again, obsolete, same as their tank forces that didn't have radio stations and couldn't communicate effectively on the battlefield. Soviet tanks would be poorly used, and attack without infantry support, which together with lack of radio cummunications, meant they were a very easy target for well trained and coordinated German forces. Even when T-34 and KV tanks turned up, the same problems would apply, and Soviets would lose them by sending them alone.
The Germans would also train in the USSR before the war, and had good relations with the locals.
This, together with propaganda that spoke of fighting for communism, the party and world revolution resulted in very low morale in the Red Army. With some exceptions of fierce and frantic resistance, Soviet soldiers didn't understand what they were fighting for, and in some regions, such as Ukraine or Latvia, Germans were seen as saviors.
This attitude changed once Germans started committing war crimes, and Soviet communists changed their war propaganda. Instead of fighting for communism, revolution and the party, people would be told to fight for motherland. Stalin even stopped persecution of the Orthodox church and asked for aid in building up morale.
German tactics, training and discipline was only one of many elements, because in each succesful campaign they would fight an enemy that had huge problems.
@@SparrowNoblePoland ahh just shut up germans were outnumbered by the french and british plus german tanks could not go to fight with a french or soviet tank head on.... german army had many problems too but they overall were the better army untill 1944-1945
@@kuqezi8378 They had completely lost before 43 started, some would say 42.
@@kuqezi8378 Things I mentioned, are described in detailed history books on the matter, and your argument is 'shut up, German tanks couldn't fight with other tanks'. LOL
First of all it's not true. Even against T-34, German analysis from the time showed that Pz.III would win an encounter. That is because T-34s didn't have radio stations, the commander was overloaded and practically blind when inside the tank. Plus, Soviets had no idea how to use them, and they did not operate in larger groups before 1942. Earlier Soviets relied mainly on T-26 tanks, and to some extent BT series which German tanks could take on on equal terms or with ease.
In terms of fighting with Polish or British tanks, German tanks were comparable or superior. Only the French were a threat, but Germans avoided fighting them with tanks, and they posed a threat mainly to infantry and artillery.
But the more important thing you do not understand and what statistics clearly show, is that during WWII tanks rarely fought each other. Usually tanks were fighting infantry and artillery. In American doctrine a tank wasn't even an anti-tank weapon. Tank destroyer was.
Wehrmacht also had separate units of tank destroyers, which consisted mainly of infantry armed with anti-tank weapons such as A/T guns, and it was the tank destroyers infantry that had most trouble with French tanks and rare encounters with T-34s and KVs, because their main weapon was 37mm A/T gun, and heavier A/T guns were a rarity.
The only reason why a tank fight became a thing, was that Soviets had virtually unlimited numbers of tanks and armored vehicles they could easily replace, so on the East front a risk that a tank would fight another tank was considerably larger than anywhere else.
Which is why Germans accelerated work on Tiger, and thought of Panther tanks and used them in the role of tank destroyers.
But before Soviets mass-produced considerable amounts of T-34s and KVs tank vs. tank fights were a rarity, and remained a rarity in the West till the end of the war. Most of the time tanks were fighting versus infantry and it's true even for the East Front, where most Soviet tanks were destroyed by anti-tank artillery.
Great video btw thank you
3 ads in under 6-minutes, you gotta chill Knowledgia
Gotta make money somehow
Buy premium, bruh
I love your animation style
Speed leading to encirclements is why.
This would later come to bite them though since it used a lot of resources, resources they couldn’t keep afloat m.
Nazi encirclements failed at the Battle of the Bulge。The US Army refused to surrender： ＂Nuts！＂
1) the point that USSR and Germans had agreement and worked together in alliance from 1939 till 1941 somehow is not mentioned
2)Soviet Union doesn’t mean Russians.
German efficiency vs French 2 hour lunches
& British tea time
And Germanys meth
The Germans are famous blacksmiths in medieval europe, their pride in engineering is deep rooted in their people and their history. Their craftsmanship is legendary and this cultural reputation forced future generations to keep up the tradition. Made in Germany is not a branding but an absolute quality assurance that is endorsed on only the best products.
Yea I heard that’s the case
So germans are basicly the dwarves in a fantasy world.
Wehraboo noises
Made in Germany isn’t the quality it once was nowadays most German companies produce their stuff in China like every other country. Made in Germany has lost its status. It once was a seal of quality but now it means 30-50% of the work was done in Germany. The rest was done all over the world.
@@Manie230 Correct. German quality counts for almost nothing these days. Its just a marketing phrase.
I have spoken to a German guy about this. He told me one of the reason Germany was so effective was a result of the limit the other countries put on Germany to have an army. This resulted in fewer officers being educated. So only the best officers could attend officer shool. The officers was trained in how to use the army most effective. Later Hitler took over Germany and removed the limit on the army. or something like that
Some of the big names like Guderian and Rommel also had some fuckups that could have been avoided. In essence, both of them tended to rush forward with their armored troops way too quickly which made reenforcing the German flanks a lot harder. And most officers only have that great of a reputation because they knew how to show themselves in a good light
@David Schneider yes, but they literally captured millions of troops with that strategy, the first time it failed was stalingrad but that was bc they fought urban warfare and couldn't menauver around, so all in all it worked very well, won them france and even captured millions in the first 2 years of Barbarossa, no army on earth other than the soviets could've lost that many troops and equipment and keep fighting a land war the USSR was very tenacious, Plus hitler benched heinz early and rommel was mostly in Africa with bad supplies
Makes sense. General Rommel would have been mentioned with the African part of the war.
@@bigtittie7295 actually it failed because hitler ordered some troops to go south before stalingrad, instead of after, to take the oil fields. which left it not enough to breath through fast
@@zero.Identity well, the 6th army took 93 percent of stalingrad, but the 4th Army (the one youre talking about) was south and not covering the 6th Armies flanks while they fought to take the rest of Stalingrad resulting in them all getting encircled
One moment please. The Germans were only good until Brag Pitt and his Sherman entered the battlefield.
I love the video, the only problem with it is that Germans werent as motorized as it's in the common belief. They used lot of horses and they struggled to get enough oil especially the later stages of the war when the allied were successfully bombed down the synthetic oil refineries (Also they only had oil reserves for something like 3 months of warfare before launching Barbarossa). Their loss was truly the tragic of over confidence and logistical nightmares. Also if they wouldn't hate on jews they wouldve kept high quality human capital like Einsten and dozens of other physicists/ scientists who developed the atom bomb at the end.
I knew about the horses carrying fuel and food when they invaded northern France. Do you know if the carriages were as heavily protected as the animations of this video suggest?
Cause I was thinking, with a few snipers here and there... bye be fuel.
You think the Nazi loss was＂tragic＂？
Not sure if "tragic" was the appropriate word there bud
@@user-jq2iz9zn4p yes. Nobody likes globalism and multiculturism
Thats a true Statement ฺ i am german.
Hey can you please do a video on "The Russian Dunkirk." It's one of those little known events of WWII that often goes under the radar.
What is the exact event you mention?
@@vittoriuz---It's the Russian version of Dunkirk. It's where the Russian Navy and a bunch of soldiers n civilians evacuated from this port called Tallinn in 1941 when Operation Barbarossa was in full swing.
Discipline and determination.
Not really
More like the fact that the nazis were the only ones prepared for the war. Once the soviets got their shit together the nazis got their ass kicked
@@sapiensiski got their shit together is more like until they got support from other allies. To defeat many times smaller country lol that was already fighting 5 other countries lol
@@deangregoric4735 you know its the soviets who won kursk and stalingrad and turned the tide of the eastern front... right?
also the soviets could have easily defeated the nazis, it would have just taken more time
Just face it, your beloved nazis werent so good at war
@@sapiensiski You got it wrong. The reason why the Germans struggeled with Russia was because of the climate. It was very cold and they needed to build railways and shit to advance. They were using up alot of their resourcers. Same mistake with Napoleon. Plus the 2 side war really lost the germans morale. If Germany didnt go to war against Soviet. Then if the Soviet attack alone they wouldnt win
@@sapiensiski kursk and Stalingrad wore already when allies wore helping soviets we Will not talk what would have happened if not for allies because it's only speculation but if we look at numbers we can see that even with aid soviets could barely hold positions not to mention that at that time Germans wore deprived of resources and winter pretty much crippled them so basically we are looking at country with far less men fighting 5 countries making some terrible decisions and still managed to almost beat much bigger country with more than few times bigger army that cried allies for help
And here you are telling naziz weren't that strong? How can you think that someone can take you seriously?
Very informative and accurate information really like the maps they're good too
The real keys to Germany's early successes were intelligent use of radios and mobile warfare tactics. France actually had a significantly larger modern tank force than Germany in 1940. However, they didn't utilize new technology effectively and dispersed their tanks widely, allowing Germany to coordinate, concentrate their tanks, and overpower the French at the point of contact.
it was because France viewed tanks as an infantry support tool, but the Germans saw the true potential of the tanks
Wow you have done very well, this is the exact same how we learned in history
As a brit I can name eleven excellent German Generals but only one mediocre British one that is why they were so effective... they were vastly more competent soldiers than the aristocratic British generals who knew which side the port should be served but were rubbish at actually fighting a war
The German generals lost to the British generals and lost the air war against the British.
German generals were ok while they were winning but when they met the allies they were tossed to one side and over run whenever they stood or attacked.
Montgomery was ten times smarter and more effective than all german generals (except Rommel who in the end was against Hitler)
But these useless Brithsh Generals beat the shit out of the Germans.
True, the battle of Arnhem is a good example. elite British troops were very brave, but maybe the majority of British officers had no clue. see the recent book by Beevor.
more like the german generals were allowed to print ludicrous propaganda to make themselves look good.
the cold war between the west and the sovjets already began during the second world war.
so when the second world war ended both parties used propaganda to get a dominant position in central europe.
so the west used the german generals and let them print their fake histories and autobiographies in which they protrayed the russians as animals who didnt even hesitate to kill their own men for communisms victory, that the russians are an unstoppobale force that couldnt be beaten,that the german army wasnt that much involved in ethical cleansing and that the generals were against hitler etc.
with the end of the sovjet union and the cold war we got a lot more sources from the sowjet side and you can say that almost 85% writen about the eastern front before 1991 is complete bullshit
The Germans were are worth opponents. They brought ancient Rome down to its knee, they crushed all major powers twice.
I like your videos those are amusing and help me to acquire more knowledge and I am your former supporter and old subscriber I subscribed you from 5k so please make a video on Skanderbeg I liked your videos before seeing so please
We plan to cover Skanderbeg this year
@@Knowledgia Thank you for making a video on Skanderbeg
As a fan of Dan Carlins history podcast, a common theme in ALL wars presents itself. Time and time again, even in wars like the persian gulf war, the victor is the one who grabs and adopts the new technology. Why do you think the US military is adapting to drones now? In all wars, back to the Romans, one side clings to the old ways, and one aggressively dives into the new technology.
Could you do a video on the Polish Resistance?
What you want know about PR?
Treaty of Versailles: "am I a joke to you"
Hitler: " yes"
Treaty of Versailles: " I will take steiner when you most need him"
Thank's,very fair and intelligent video! Greetings from Heidelberg by a German!👍
Die Grünen 🤮
Absoluter Schmutz diese Grünen
The Germans were the best soldiers of ww2. They lost because they were outnumbered
@Omega black 🤣🤣🤣🤣
actually they lost because of many reason. logistic, manpower and i would say material and factory bombardment(maybe included in logistic. U cant resupply material and oil in war if u often get sabotage and 1panzer iv or panther get overrun by hundred of t34. on late war with decreasing quality from german factory( lack of quality alloy.etc) t34 consider superior against german tank. Also german tank have lot of breakdown in winter on soviet. So early war they win as war prolonged the lost already.
Because they thought Enigma was undecodable .
They lost because they went to cold Russia
@@tsetgni5630 Yes , with summeruniforms
The world will never forget, that it took the entire world to stop us. No country will be able to ever claim that.
it was just Russia who stppped you . And you adsvenced only becasue of lies and breaking treaties
True. Russia alone would have lost pretty hard to Germany. But there is another country. Today if a full scale world war would break out, not even the whole world could stop the USA. USA is far more superior to the rest of the world than Germany was.
Russia did.
@@stanstanic8422 NOPE, it was Russia, Usa, UK, France and a lot more countries. If Germany had focused the entire army in the Eastern front the outcome would be a different one. And it wasn't only the Russian army who beat them in Russian front, Russian winter did just as much. Hitler did his part in it too because he often times "corrected" his generals decisions, luckily he was an awful strategist.
@@Luke_mnbrd nope. Just a few nuclear bombs over selected cities would do. Russia wouldn't need any other help to do that.
The German Army were the greatest military machine the planet had ever seen by far. They only lost because the Allies outproduced them.
On the battle field, they were invincible.
Ah, yes. That's why the Germans failed in every front they fought in, because they were invincible. Even on the defensive the Germans were incapable of stopping the Allies from pushing them to their own borders. Even in Africa when the Germans had more equipment in their ports than the British had in the field, the Germans failed to defeat them.
The German Army of WWII is the most overrated thing in existence.
@@youraveragescotsman7119 The Allies outproduced them. Its as simple as that.
@@dkizxpt-su3ze
And the Allies adapted and countered them, while the Germans failed to adapt.
@@youraveragescotsman7119 dude... we germans won against france, we were fucking balls deep in USSR, we took over Greece where Italy failed, we defended ourselves against Italy when they switched sides pretty hard and they were not able to push the Germans back what so ever...
My point is:
WE FOUGHT AGAINST -FRANCE(supernation), -BRITAIN(supernation), -RUSSIA(supernation),
-midway through also against ITALY (supposed to be a supernation but failed to invade Greece💀),
-GREECE and a bunch of other nations
*_AND WE WERE WINNING!!!_*
Sure, eventually after getting resources from the USA for years and having the USA also help by fighting in France(D-Day), the Soviets at some point managed to push back...
*_it took every supernation except of course Germany combined to take down Germany!!!_*
@@youraveragescotsman7119 no tienes nada de idea.
1 Los alemanes invadieron toda Europa
2 Aislaron a Reino Unido
3 Invadieron la mitad de la unión soviética
4Sus tácticas son estudiadas hoy en día
Te sigue pareciendo sobrevalorado
this didnt get brought up in the video but one of the reasons why they were so effective at DOGFIGHTING and could dominate the skies was because they were the first ones to realize you could use Nitrous Oxide in an engine for increased performance. theyd take their opponents to a higher altitude with thinner air where the engine would run richer, slower, and less effective, then engage their nitrous for oxygen on demand allowing them to fly faster and out flank and out manuever which let them just DOMINATE in dogfighting for the first few years of the war, until the US showed up.
The germans were brilliant. My dad landed on Omaha beach the morning of d-day with the 147th combat engineers. He passed away 4-1-13 but he often spoke highly of the german's intelligence & technologies. The allies did not defeat buffoons.
@@midnightrider7648 yeah. they'd've probably gotten a titch further if they hadnt decided to all start doing meth.
You do be uploading at 5am for me haha
Lol in germany its 1pm
There are different Time zones across the world
@@bowserheadteacher thats why he said "for me" shit sherlock
Actually went to G maps to the closest they got to Moscow and you can indeed see the towers of St. Basil but it's still 20km or more to get there.
Yeah but like you said, it's multiple km away. Plus the Soviets had painted over most of the major buildings during the war to avoid air raids sooooo.
I truly believe that German people are a rare and dominating race… its mind boggling to think that they were destroyed in both world wars and still be the top 4/5 economic power house in the world
that's true even their ancestor viking defeat Roman Empire and conquer eroupe after that and built new kingdom such as Frankish Empire, being a king in kingdom of england, denmark, norway, Holy Roman empire even Habsbrug Dynasty is one of the most powerful dynasty in the world at the time, and then we have Prussia, German Empire, Nazi and German nowadays. Fun fact queen victoria is german descent when she is coqueror 1/4 of the world. That's how powerful and dominance race was a german people. Not only dominance by power but in term of economy and intelligents too. In fact I'm not german.
@@TheKingofTheUniverse. lol coz im not German i can say it freely🤣🤣🤣
They only became that way due to EXTENSIVE restructuring programs (financial and materiel) from Britain and the Americans in the 1960's and 70's
@@VincenzoInfi Thats bullshit. The german economy was crazily strong before WWI in 1914. The german engineering was top class and the nobel prizes went to the famous german researchers. German Was the lingua franca in physics back then. In WWI nothing was destroyed since the war took place in France. Due to heavy destruction in WWII massive reconstruction was needed which fueled a strong economic recovery. The marshall plan for Germany was smaller than for the other european countries. It was clear that the german ppl will build up their old strength because they can!
@@LiquidIEx it’s not bullshit, since all your aryan ran along shit you had almost every house destroyed, a Europe in total was mostly destroyed by the Germans, which is why there is still some anti-aryan sentiment around today, the USA started the Truman plan I think it was called, to invest into all of Europe and west Germany
I like your content
The German army was low in armor technology and resources but they have better-trained officers and Generals along with tactics which made them effective in the first few years.
yeah I heard they all took early form pharmaceutical meth amphetamines. Meaning Nazis then are like Nazis today, junkies who act before they think
@@marlkarx3725 Not sure if I should find that funny or not.
But making fun of Nazis, especially the modern ones always gets a like from me.
but the Königstiger had the second strongest armor in ww2.
@@mando_dablord2646
That was not a joke tho.
Wehrmacht soldiers used meth in masses.
But thats already well known.
@@kayvan671 I didn't know Nazi's took math. 😂
But I was talking about the comparison to WWII Nazis taking meth like the modern day Nazis.
the way germany recovered after wwii was incredible
yeah even tho the marshall plan makes sense, Germany quickly overtook England in terms of economy. Even tho England won the war (or maybe survived it lol), their empire broke down and Churchill had to see it. probably made a lot of pain in his arse.
@@msreviews5576 well ww2 occured in a period of time when Empires were slowly and gradually getting weaker and weaker. The Cold War would finally put the nail in the coffin for the Empires that spawned in the Victorian and Imperial eras
@@terrypennington2519 i dont disagree with that, both views are correct in different chronological times
@@msreviews5576 yes it did
They didn't have a country until 1871, fast forward 30 years they become a world superpower
Lose a war badly and live under terrible conditions for 20 years, 5 more years and become a superpower AGAIN
Have a divided country for 50 years ?, no problem 20 years of unity and back on track with the rest of world leaders
Gotta admire that in a nation :D
Your voice is pure History Channel
The biggest problem, and possibly a decisive reason for the defeat, was the logistics of supplies 🤔
Also, only about 20% of the German Army was modern and mechanized. They were still using horses to move supplies. The British and American Armies were fully mechanized. With that and the USSR the Germans had zero chance.
@@shrimpflea because of a lack of oil. Technologically speaking the Nazis were highly advanced, especially in aviation, the V2 was the first object to reach space, the Nazis also got the Yankees on the moon (Operation Paperclip).
What also made Britain effective was their computing from Alan Turing, Germans had Zuse.
"Or was it just German efficiancy" video done, all questions answered.
@@lokischeissmessiah5749 more self impressed then the Brittish, French or the American? I don't think so.
With that said. I do agree with you that the German plan was very much doomed from the start. Does work with certain enemies but not with all. Just like every type of warfare.
Though its very easy to dismiss something with the history book in hand and a different thing to look through the lense of history from its own time and people. Why taking different perspective, giving the other side its chance and fair points is important. As the video states and intended making.
History is written by the winner but made for learning.
@@lokischeissmessiah5749 about present day Germany culture and mindset I cannot comment but the rest I do fully agree with you, on how the mindset of nationalistic fanataism that always lead to all reality is cast out in total ignorance, is the core of the WW2 German (and almost every other nation that have sought to become an empire) ultimate demise.
I have no idea what the other guy said because it's gone. But:
WWII Germany=Bad
Modern Germany=Good
Germany was woefully inefficient when it came to their production of weapons and materials. They often over engineered everything and had multiple variations of vehicles they didn’t even need.
And amphetamines. Do not forget amphetamines.
Advanced weaponry.
Effective planning & tactics.
Patriotic & fanatical mentality.
Pervitin.
Their training and tactics were excellent. Operations and Strategy not so much.
Pervitin。The Nazis were stoned when they invaded France。
@A. M. if the allies didnt attack the heavy water facility in norway germany would have the nuke bye end of 43 the germans also knew they would declare war after invading poland and germany was the most advanced country at that point rockets they invented actual jets submarines were topnotch and guns were also strong af
Great Vid!
Israel: *furiously takes notes*
Oh boy, you went there!😄
It already did as Israel is an ethnic nationalist state with an apartheid (clear difference of who is a citizen) and is also in permant warfare as Germany was when surrounded by allied satellite sates.
Israel: Daddy Hitler made me a reality as the Transfer Agreement between Nazis and Zionists proves.
nah too late for them
lol they could probably annex in 3 hours if they really wanted too
3:32 Well... he wasn’t really elected. He was assigned to that position by the government because they thought that it would put him somewhere they could control him and it would make him calm down.
We see how well that worked out though
@@MatanT18 No he didn't? He position was assigned to him by the government without him winning any sort of election. There was fear that he would win an election and would ruin Germany, but he never did since he was able to use the position granted to him to achieve that.
You can find all sorts of information on this all over the place if you so please
Why didn't the "allies" decaled war on USSR too (it also invaded Poland)?
History matters made video about that
They were scared, bottom line.
The excuse was that the Soviet invaded the other half of Poland so it "wouldn't fall into nazi hands".
Unlike Hitler they actually bothered to look into what happened the last time someone tried it
@@sympathiser_of_Germans_in_40s oh you mean Russia utterly collapsing under weight of invasion? Russia hadn’t won a war since the Crimean war at that point
One of the most important things for the blitzkrieg was methamphetamine