Thanks to Adam Adkins for researching this episode. In so many ways it's our community who keep TimeGhost going. If you want to be part of this then join the TimeGhost Army on www.patreon.com/timeghosthistory or timeghost.tv. You should also check out Chieftain's video on German Panzer doctrine for added context: th-cam.com/video/pbKAg4SRW_U/w-d-xo.html Please let us know what other Bio's you'd like to see. And if you would like to know something about a smaller topic, make sure to submit that as a question for our Q&A series, Out of the Foxholes. You can do that right here: community.timeghost.tv/c/Out-of-the-Foxholes-Qs. Cheers, Francis *RULES OF CONDUCT* STAY CIVIL AND POLITE we will delete any comments with personal insults, or attacks. AVOID PARTISAN POLITICS AS FAR AS YOU CAN we reserve the right to cut off vitriolic debates. HATE SPEECH IN ANY DIRECTION will lead to a ban. RACISM, XENOPHOBIA, OR SLAMMING OF MINORITIES will lead to an immediate ban. PARTISAN REVISIONISM, ESPECIALLY HOLOCAUST AND HOLODOMOR DENIAL will lead to an immediate ban.
I have watched thousands of hours of WW1 & WW2 documentaries. Much of which is very similar, but Indy, Spartacus & the team make the most in depth, inciteful, interesting & entertaining account of events that I have ever seen. Thanks guys.
Insightful too ;~) This is how it should be done, but the big boys almost never manage - here we have a deeper dive than most of the cartoon level documentary producers will bother with - they sweat the "eyes glaze over" issue and only hit the headlines. This team segregates things nicely. With TimeGhost, we have the "action sequences" and the "character development" along with deep background - all in their own presentations that are of length and depth to communicate, not just fit between advertisements and play to the lowest common denominator. This should be the textbook approach, but someone needs to write that textbook!
@@garryrowland Just a little fun among the good guys! Hope it's taken that way. Actually, it's a grammar or really, a meaning-check (but I'm not an English-Nazi ... just someone who spots potential for humor now and then.)
Blitzkrieg was invented by German born Australian AIF General Sir John Monash in ww1. Germany used John Monash battle plan in ww2, There are many books about ww2 that say this.
Give Soviet Storm a try; it has wooden acting, but you quickly forget about once you realise they coherent and comprehensive to a level no other documentary on the Eastern Front has. Also, it has a killer soundtrack! Episode 1 here: th-cam.com/video/97iOxxH_64s/w-d-xo.html
Charles DeGaulle and Mikhail Tukhachevsky you say? They were cellmates as POWs in Ingolstadt fortress during WWI. Tukhachevsky commanded the Soviet invasion of Poland during the Polish-Soviet War in 1920. DeGaulle was in Poland with the French Military Mission as an instructor and was decorated for taking part in operations against the Soviet invasion. In 1920 Pilsudski defeated Tukhachevsky with a brilliant flanking attack and series of battles in constant motion. It was those manneuvres and deployments that DeGaulle witnessed first-hand. He would later espouse that philosophy in his lectures at the Ecole Militaire and in his published book (1934) on the topic. (His book only sold 700 copies in France but 7000 in Germany where it was studied by Hitler. DeGaulle and Tukhachevsky met again in 1936 in France. (Tukhachevsky’s train passed through Warsaw and Berlin.) Tukhachevsky was purged (executed) by Stalin in 1937. During a 1966 visit to the USSR DeGaulle tried unsuccessfully to meet Tukhachevsky’s surviving family members.
Blitzkrieg was invented by German born Australian AIF General Sir John Monash in ww1. Germany used John Monash battle plan in ww2, There are many books about ww2 that say this.
@@ianfarr-wharton1000 Monash was definitely born in Melbourne and while his family occasionally spoke German at home, he grew up in an English speaking society and studied engineering and law at Melbourne University. It has been argued that his background as a full time civil engineer and (initially) only a part time soldier allowed him to view tactics and logistics from a different perspective than officers locked inside the military bubble, and this is how he came up with the type of combined arms warfare that changed everything.
Blitzkrieg- A surprise attack in a small country when you quickly cover most of the territory . quickly stepping into the neighbor's territory and capturing as much of the territory as possible by surprise, what's so impressive?
@@amulyagupta441 Avengers: Infinity War. It's a reference to a line Drax says when the Guardians of the Galaxy meet Dr. Strange, Iron Man, and Spider-Man.
@@azonezon3219 wrong it is when thousands of motorized and tank divisions rush a nation and take it as quick as they can while bombarding the enemy with bombings
-French High Command: hey Charles, remember that book you wrote that we ignored? the Germans read it and are using your tactics. how do you counter that? -De Gaulle: defense in depth with minefields, antitank guns, mutually supporting strong points and an armoured reserve ready to counter attack. Battle of France looks like the Battle of Kursk
What is this Russia you speak of? Russia does not exist as a state, it is but part of the great Soviet Union, and no one will invade that. It is allies with Germany, has kicked Japan's arse and the evil capitalist- imperialist in Britain has nothing to invade with after the great German victories in France. You silly person.
Hmmm, how to decribe Blitzkrieg... Oh, here we go: " Fast as the wind, the invasion has begun... Shacking the ground, with the force of thousand guuuns... First in the line of fire, first into hostile land. Tanks leading the way Leading the waaaaaaay... "
@@jelkrette1955 I actually have a personal connection with him. My gradfather was a desk officer until they learned of his perfect French fluency. He was immediately transferred to translation work, and was de Gaulle's interpreter on one occasion (a press conference, I believe).
"sir the germans they broke through at sedan" "Don't worry our men would stop them" "But sir they have arrived at arras" "Wait what you just said" "Sir we are cut off at dunkirk we need to evacuate" "WHAT"
Blitzkrieg was invented by German born Australian AIF General Sir John Monash in ww1. Germany used John Monash battle plan in ww2, There are many books about ww2 that say this.
@@ianfarr-wharton1000 yeah,combined warfare was created in WW1 too,and some say there were early attempts at doing something akin to Blitzkrieg,in the reign of Frederick the great of Prussia,as far as I'm aware.
@@ianfarr-wharton1000 I don't think we can just declare that one guy invented it. "Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen" (combined arms warfare) und "Bewegungskrieg" (war of movement) have both been pioneered in ww1 by both sides (within their industrial capabilites). The allies deployed tanks and aircrafts on a large scale, while germany und austria developed the stormtroops. Combining those elements among others... I think we can see its effects. Not to mention italian (arditi) and russian developments
@@maximilianolimamoreira5002 General Sir John Monash, his mum and dad where Prussian Jews. So may be he was a fan of Frederick , even if he was born in Australia.
@@ianfarr-wharton1000 yes,probably,i am somewhat of a fan of Frederick the great and his tactics too,because for the time he reigned,his tactics were kind of revolutionary,but with the french revolutionary wars,they became obsolete.
The Soviets may have developed a comprehensive Deep Operation doctrine in the early 1930s, but Stalin's purges killed a most of the officers who were versed in it. The Red Army may have to relearn it the hard way while fighting the Germans. One key innovation of Deep Operations is the unintuitive tactic of not leading with the tanks. Instead, less mobile infantry and artillery are used to create a breach in the enemy lines. Once a breakthrough is made, fresh tank and mobile forces are sent through the breach. This means they don't have to spend their men and resources on the breakthrough, and can instead focus on the mobile warfare phase.
SPOILER The Soviet offensive at Kharkov in 1942 will show some aspects of it but the Germans' superior communications and coordination will turn early Soviet gains into a heavy defeat, as the attackers are encircled. By and large the Soviets preferred attacks on a wider front later, with perhaps two main axes of advance, as this exploited the Germans' relative lack of reserves.
gargravarr...ok, so where did you get this name for yourself? Back to my comment, as bad as Lenin was (he was no saint as far muredrs go), he recognized the faults Stalin had - he only wanted to be in charge of the entire country and anyone against him, was dangerous and would die. He actually warned all candidates for the position of leader that Stalin shouldn'be allowed (voted out) as leader because he wasn't smart enough. This occurred before Lenin died. Stalin figured this last bit and his paranoia caused the deaths of all the generals who didn't tell him what he wanted to hear (as Hitler did by the way!). Although Hitler's generals weren't killed (except for Rommel who "committed suicide" for the failure in N Africa).
@@agustintrivino9365 Correct, though the key word, which you mentioned, is 'implicated'. Whilst he may have had some vague knowledge of a likely plot within the military, there's no evidence that he was directly involved. His name came up in subsequent interrogations of captured plotters, who had wanted to bring him into the plan but whom Rommel had kept at arms length. Rommel didn't want to get involved in any dangerous schemes and was uncomfortable with the idea of bumping off Hitler. If he had been forced into suicide for North Africa, he would have died in 1943, not 1944.
"Blitzkrieg" which isn't a real term the Germans used but whatever was very much a continuation of what the British used in 1918 with their combined arms warfare
The basic principles of combined arms warfare have been the same since they were first developed, no matter the technology being used. If you've ever read about the Boer War you can see the same kinds of techniques being developed by the British to dislodge the Boers from their dug-in positions, instead of the typical artillery-then-infantry-than-cavalry style of 19th Century warfare.
I've read about this topic, I've watched films about it, I've played games about it. But when Indy talks about it, I enjoy every second of it 🙂 Indy, thank you for being such an interesting and passionate host! And thanx all of you guys and girls from WW2 channel for such a great show! Two thumbs up 👍🏻👍🏻
THANK YOU for being one of those few youtube channels to recognise and highlight the misuse of the word, and especially the wrong interpretation of its origin
I know, I clicked on this video thinking, boy can't wait to be preached some british propaganda by another ww2 channel, then he actually knew what he was talking about, so I am pleasantly surprised
There is a genuine genius to these videos. I haven't yet had the pleasure seeing them all but apparently each episode covers a week of the war as it happened and in chronological order, so the issues prevelant at the time being featured are given a much better than average attention and focus, where many if not all other presentations seem rushed and so gloss over key points. With these episodes I am left feeling as though I have a deeper understanding and appreciation rather than just having been overwhelmed by verbal catchphrases and visual clutter that other producers cobble together. Each instalment is Clear, concise and totally captivating from begining to end. Thankyou.
Correct, they are faux tanks. Germany had the same problems the US Army did in the Inter-war years with insufficient funds to buy weapons, and then painting "TANK" on a truck and tarting it up some. Not until after Hitler became Chancellor that there was money to develop tanks in a large scale.
I hope this is finding you and the team well. Doing research a couple decades ago on this topic, a few hundred books in German mostly, I appreciate your teams work. My 11 year old, is engaged and learning, without the reading, with your documentary. Thank you. My little contribution doesn’t buy you a glass of beer anywhere these days, but maybe have one on occasion anyway. Cheers
He's definitely one of the more interesting characters of the war. Have they already done a biography special on him? If not, I'm looking forward to it. Also looking forward to (SPOILER ALERT) his work prepping for the Allied landings in Europe.
Hobart had absolutely no clue of understanding combined arms doctrine. Tank advocates are not inherently proponents of proper doctrine. See every battle in North Africa as proof.
I've heard some theorist calling blitzkrieg as sheer recklessness, since it ignores the necessary logistics to supply the advancing army. Yet, such recklessness often worked, depending on the will power an resourcefulness of the enemy to resist.
You need to do two things; erase the term Blitzkrieg from your mind, watch Citino's lectures here on youtube, or read his books. You will learn about The German Way of War.
Czechoslovak lietunant Ferdinand Otto Miksche (also author and military theorist, in WWII in services of the Free France) published a book about it in London (1941) with simple title ,,Blitzkrieg", impressively describing that tactics. Greetings from The Czech Republic and great thanks for your amazing channel!
@@lorddashdonalddappington2653 May I have a question? Why do you have flag of United Communes of Britain as your profile picture, when you have "lord" in your username. I thought communists hate aristorcracy?
Thank you Indy and team. I'm working on aspects of a 'Great Patriotic War' game and your description of the attributes of 'blitzkrieg' (bewegungskrieg) and deep battle have given me much food for thought. I observe that you suggest Khalkhin Gol was deep battle in practice. I recall The Chieftain suggesting such was not the case when he discussed the development of Soviet Armor and doctrine. My perception of Khalkhin Gol was that it was a use of combined arms to achieve a classic 'Cannae' double envelopment of the enemy. It's my perception that many of the proponents of deep battle (Tukhachevsky's protégés) were purged and the Red Army given over to the strategic defensive with a counterstroke at the opportune moment. It's also my perception the Tukhachevsky intended the mechanized corps (of three brigades, not divisions) for deep penetration while the brigades were intended for infantry support, breakthrough and cavalry-like envelopment. Zhukov had tank brigades not mechanized corps. I don't believe a case can be made that Khalkhin Gol was an example of deep battle.
"Could have learned from Khalkhin Gol" is such an weird though because it would had been next to impossible for any western army to know about it in detail or even place it on the map. It would had been next to impossible to any outside observer write about it in detail as it was on very remote location to begin with and with war in Europe on the doorsteps nobody would had even bothered with any such report. Only side that really though about it in detail that much was Japan which reaction was "Oh shit! We need to rethink entirely our tank concept and we need more modern airplanes. Also, we really can't go directly agaisnt Soviet Union as of now". Soviets really took it as "proof in concept" and demand for more trucks.
@@barnabasverti9690 And then my question would be how? How any western armies would had been able to obtain accurate information or draw the exactly right conclusions from it or any army in that matter. And somehow you would had to convince higher ups that this border skirmish shows how wars should be fought when new european war was kicking off. And probably get send to nearest mental asulym for such claims. Everything is way easier said then done in hindsight. Especially for a battle that really became decades later actually known.
@@barnabasverti9690 Ok, lets move past unknown/known information as I can't really find about it that well. That can be kinda subjective. But I am not going to swallow that armies were negligent when not taking note on Khalkin Khol (well western ones anyway) as it could had been that Khalkin Khol happened too late to be used as example and studied on. Main battles happened in August and hostilities formally ended in middle of September, weeks after war had started. And when there would had been information there was other things to be done. I mean, Germans would rather use their experience in Poland as basis for any changes in their army and Britain/French were too busy mobilizing and rearming that any sudden changes to it could had disturbed it too much. And the fact that Britain/French were determined that it would transform into a repeat of repeat of last time certainly didn't make changes easy. So lets say Khalkin Khol happened year or 2 earlier then it certainly is possible that it would have impact on things like Spanish civil war had on employment on air power. If.
@@barnabasverti9690 Good points. Although I do remember NATO planners in the 1980s spending a good deal of time studying the bocage battles in Normandy of 1944 to glean ideas for confronting the anticipated Soviet massed armored attack through the Fulda Gap.
"What's so good about a sickle?" "Well, nothing, and if there's one thing we've learnt in the last thousand miles of retreat it's that Russian agriculture is in dire need of mechanisation."
The problem with applying this during Barbarossa was that Germany overextended their advance after achieving penetration. This meant that supply lines became too long and infantry support become too thin with both incapable of keeping up. So the mechanized groups ran out of supplies and reinforcements while the breakthroughs couldn't be effectively contained and exploited. Germany was sprinting, and that had worked well in their previous engagements, but Russia was a marathon.
The explanation I find most applicable, and one I cannot properly recall who presented. Germany won a series of regional wars quite comfortably with the tactics and resources developed. However because Germany failed to acknowledge and understand the logistical demands and the resources required to wage a general war they could not prevail at that next level. Germany's only chance of strategic victory was in the use of a large submarine fleet to starve Britain into submission. However, Germany would still have had to keep United States out of the war so as to gain unhindered access to the resources of the empire of France and the industrial capacity of Great Britain before taking on the Soviet Union. Remember, the Soviet Red Army was highly mechanized, the British and Commonwealth forces and American forces completely mechanized. That it took almost the entire industrial capacity of the world to defeat Germany is telling yet that effort also obscures that Germany woefully misunderstood logistics. And, very little is yet made of the fact, because of the eugenics policies of the Nazis being paramount to all else, the SS controlled half of the logistical capacity of the European rail system for the purposes of the concentration and death camps and at a prority of equipment draw and routing precedence than the German military even until the last days.
Was that Citino in The German Way of War maybe? And frankly they failed pretty horribly to build up their U-boat fleet to the numbers required for that strategic campaign and wasted resources on surface ships. (Schnell boats aside)
Strike with air force and artillery.Use the chaos and confusion to to flank and trap the enemy with armored units and leave the infantry for the final blow.
So just when USSR is getting progressive with its military, Stalin decided to cut it down (remove/kill most of its officers). It will take quite some time in the WW2 until they are able to regain their tactical upper hand, but even then the lingering results of the purges will still be felt.
3:30 its kinda bizarre and counter intuitive to me to say its best to have the soft squishy meatbags walk in front of the giant armored machines with guns. But maybe thats just me.
that's because they were seeing tanks as mobile armoured artillery, to do the job of artillery during deep penetrations. WW1 tanks had a speed similar to infantry.
They can see hidden enemy positions a lot better. Imagine this: Take some big pieces of cardboard to cover all the windows in your car then cut out a couple small slits to look through. Then try to drive through town or even just a big box store parking lot. Preferably one you've not been to before. That'd be a bit dangerous even without people shooting at you you big guns or sneaking up to bust a window and drop a grenade or molotov cocktail inside. Then it makes more sense why you'd want some soft squishy meatbags walking ahead and around you I think. For the meatbags trying to charge or outflank a machine position is a bit of a risky thing, but if you've got a tank with a mg or two of it's own and big gun then you just take cover and a big bang or two later from the tank you can get about your day. So it's a win-win for everybody.
I am not sure about the success of the Soviets against the Japanese being thanks to the doctrine of deep battle. With such a massive superiority in troops, material and quality of material could there have been any different outcome?
Until the arrival of Zhukov, a lot of the fighting at Khalkin Gol was very much see-saw, similar to that in China. The Soviet might have been able to beat out the Japanese eventually through a meat grinder (which is something you can prepare yourself for coming next year and the year after that on the show), but deep battle summarily resolved the campaign in a way that was not really considered a serious option before.
That part about German commanders being given the objective but leaving it up to them on how to achieve it was a real sore point for Hitler when they invaded Russia. He wanted them to go somewhere but they'd go somewhere else because they felt fighting a battle was more necessary. Lack of coordination between high command and commanders in the field frustrated progress.
The Germans to the France "We just visiting on holiday!" The France "Why in military formations?" The Germans "To Honor Napoleon! We come in Peace!" The France "Ok but watch out for the British! " "They been busy taking up all the best food and liquor!" "They tell us Remember Great War!" "We match together toward the German machine guns and Artillery!" The French " OMG ! YOU ARE ALL DRUNK AND FALLING DOWN DRUNK!" THE Germans "We knew it! The British have eaten the best food and liquor!" "We have to come back after June 1941 after we take holiday in Soviet Union!"
Deep battle has a different definition in modern usage. It is the area of operations beyond the brigade zone of operations. This effectively means areas the brigade will not see or cannot range with direct fire are given to elements attached to higher headquarters to target. So much of the aircraft, non direct support artillery, and some other assets will be working on special missions of attrition, interdiction, etc.
uh, the Blitzkreig wasn't a nazi invention lol. Did you watch the video? it's an allied excuse for their failures. It looks better to say the Germans and their damned blitzkrieg got us, rather than man we sucked and the germans capitalized on us. Nonetheless, advances in communication and movement of troops led to a lot of success still, one of the reasons ww2 dint become trench warfare is because of the ardennes which were unguarded, then Dunkirk as a result defeated the British in France, and ultimately led to panzers racing towards Paris, ussr was big enough that being mobile was the only option
Just wanted to say thanks for your most excellent work, and contributions. Your content and presentation are exemplary. This applies to this effort and your most excellent and unprecedented body of work related to WWI.
Another important figure who could be mentioned as an influencer in the "blitzkrieg's" development is a Swissman called Antoine-Henry Jomini. He was a commander and strategist back in the Napoleonic Wars. He was the first actually to define the idea of a concentrated attack on deep lines. As such, Jomini is deemed the establisher of the modern concept of strategy we have today. He was a pioneer when bringing the idea of strategy closer to an outlook now we understand as scientific. Before him strategy and war were viewed somewhat more like an art.
Germany will invade Turkey, broken codes uncovered a operation named "Barbarossa". They better be careful when crossing any shallow, slow flowing rivers
A lot of these doctrines are continuations of older traditions. German doctrine way before the Great War stresses independence. Junior commanders need to know their part in the greater operation. They will encounter unforeseen opportunities and problems which they need the authority to react to. You can't set up a plan with timetable, you set up objectives and try to give junior commanders the tools to get there.
6:54 This is due to the main difference between both armies: the Wehrmacht started off as a professional highly trained force without a manpower advantage over the enemy, whereas the Red Army started off almost the opposite way, a conscription-based force which has both a manpower advantage over their enemies and a large amount of units that must be effectively coordinated in order to archieve success. Both armies have their command theories based on the proposals by Clausewitz, with the commanders in the field having a mayor role, but in the case of the Soviets at this point most of their officer corps lacks experience due to both the purges and the sped-up rearmament of the USSR in the 1930s.
Rodemos, dentro de pocos días el psicópata asesino de Hitler apuñalará por la espalda a su, hasta ese momento, ALIADO Stalin, otro psicópata asesino. El que invadió el este de Polonia (de donde salió huyendo por patas en los años 20), ocupó los países Bálticos, y se tuvo que conformar con un 15% del territorio finlandés después de perder cientos de miles de soldados.
Basically Germans (more specifically: Prussians) always yearned to fight the "Bewegungskrieg" (war of movement, war of manover) in contrast to a war of attrition. They actually planned to execute this style of war for ww1 as well until the reality of tranch warfare hit them hard. One major difference between ww1 and ww2 was the avaiability of tanks and mechanized infantry transport, enabling the Germans to fight their war of movement.
Don´t forget the influence of the development of Auftragstaktik doctrine (misison-type tactics) and Stoßtrupp tactics during WW1 that valued individual decisions of junior COs and NCOs and the need to improvise under changing battlefield conditions. This stands in strong contrast to order-type tactics that demand a great plan and everyone to stick to it. Without a strong culture of independent thinking based on a decades-long grooming of COs and NCOs in Auftragstaktik doctrine it would be debateable if Germany would have had so much success in the early years of the war.
@@fortvaux Definitely. But even with the objective oriented tactic, a war of maneuver wouldn't haven been possible without said techincal advancements. The point I wanted to make was that the concept of "Blitzkrieg" wasn't invented in ww2, but merely put to perfection.
As Indy points out, the British invented _"blitzkrieg"._ First used in force at the Battle of Amiens in 1918. The first ever combined operation of tanks, air (over 400 planes used), ground troops and artillery. It effectively ended WW1. Prof Adam Tooze in _Wages of Destruction,_ points out that Germany did not take the initiative, stating that Manstein's plans was a *one-shot* plan that could fail on many points. If it did the Whremacht was spent as an offensive force. He clearly puts it that the Panzers could have been stopped and reasonably easily too. The reason for the massive and swift German victory was to Allied incompetence, mainly French, rather than German brilliance. This is not the popular view. Adam Tooze, Wages of Destruction: Page 371. _"The German army that invaded France in May 1940 was far from being a carefully honed weapon of modern armoured warfare. Of Germany's 93 combat ready divisions on May 10 1940, only 9 were Panzer divisions, with a total of 2.438 tanks between them. These units faced a French army that was more heavily motorised, with 3,254 tanks in total."_ Dutch, Belgian, UK & French tanks in total was 4,200 tanks. The BEF was a fully motorised army, no horses were used to tow guns or supplies, unlike the German army, which was mainly horse drawn. _"the majority of the German tanks sent into battle in 1940, were inferior to the their French, British and Belgian counterparts"._ Tooze, page 371/372. _"Nor should one accept unquestioningly the popular idea that the concentration of the Germans tanks in specialised tank divisions gave them a decisive advantage. Many French tanks were scattered amongst the infantry units, but with their ample stock of vehicles the French could afford to do this. The bulk of France's best tanks were concentrated in armoured units, that, on paper at least, were every bit a match for the Panzer divisions."_ Tooze Page 454: _"Fundamentally the Wehrmacht was a "poor army". The fast striking motorised element of the Germans army in 1941 consisted of only 33 divisions of 130. Three-quarters of the German army continued to rely on more traditional means of traction: foot and horse. The German army in 1941 invaded the Soviet Union with somewhere between 600,000 and 740,000 horses. The horses were not for riding. They were for moving guns, ammunition and supplies."_ _"The vast majority of Germany's soldiers marched into Russia, as they had in France, on foot."_ The BEF did not march. The first motorised army. After Normandy most troops went by motor transport. _"But to imagine a fully motorised Wehrmacht, poised for an attack on the Soviet Union is a fantasy of the Cold War, not a realistic vision of the possibilities of 1941. To be more specific, it is an American fantasy. The Anglo-American invasion force of 1944 was the only military force in WW2 to fully conform to the modern model of a motorised army."_ Tooze, page 373: _"In retrospect, it suited neither the Allies nor the Germans to expose the amazingly haphazard course through which the Wehrmacht had arrived at its most brilliant military success. The myth of the Blitzkrieg suited the British and French because it provided an explanation other than military incompetence for their pitiful defeat. But whereas it suited the Allies to stress the alleged superiority of German equipment, Germany's own propaganda viewed the Blitzkrieg in less materialistic terms."_ Prof Tooze: _"The success of the German attack on France in May 1940 may, therefore, defy explanation in terms of a simple logic of 'brute force’. But to imagine that the balance of material forces was irrelevant to the outcome is to fall prey to voluntarism. The Wehrmacht did not overturn the basic rules of war. The victory of May 1940 is not a mysterious event explicable only in terms of the uncanny elan of the German army and the unwillingness of the French to fight. The odds facing Germany were not good. But they were not so bad that they could not be overcome by superior planning and manoeuvre. A close analysis of the mechanics of the Blitzkrieg reveals the astonishing degree of concentration achieved, but also the enormous gamble that Hitler and the Wehrmacht leadership were taking on 10 May. Precisely because it involved such a concentrated use of force, Manstein's plan was a_ *_'one-shot affair'._* _"If the initial assault had failed, and it could have failed in many ways, the Wehrmacht as an offensive force would have been spent. The gamble paid off._ *_But contrary to appearances, the Germans had not discovered a patent recipe for military miracles._* _The overwhelming success of May 1940, resulting in the defeat of a major European power in a matter of weeks,_ *_was not a repeatable outcome._* _In fact, when we appreciate the huge risks involved in Manstein's plan, the attack on France appears more similar to the Wehrmacht's other great gamble, the attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941, than is commonly supposed._ _"On both occasions, the Wehrmacht held no significant forces in reserve. In both campaigns, the Germans gambled on achieving decisive success in the opening phase of the assault. Anything less spelled disaster. The very different outcomes are fully explicable in terms of conventional military logic. Against an opponent with a greater margin of material superiority, with better leadership and with more space in which to manoeuvre, the basic Napoleonic criterion for military success - superior force at the decisive point - would be far harder, if not impossible to achieve. Inspired soldiering could only do so much."_
The armies of late WW I are something like proto-WW II armies. They are starting to develop doctrines we think of as modern and remove the last vestiges of napoleonic warfare. One of those is combined arms. The powers of 1918 know that artillery, air observers, infantry, infiltrators, early mechanized units etc can work together and crush a defended position. What they don't have is the communications capacity to pull it together. It's people waving flags, laying out field telephone lines, runners and following detailed timetables who try to put these combined arms ideas into practice. It works awesome for a few days when everyone is on schedule and easy to reach, but breaks down when units get stuck in and out of communications reach, and when circumstances change in the field.
I remember the PBS series Battlefield from the 90s that included the Wehrmacht’s plans for Operation Barbarossa in detail, including the multiple drafts it went through and Hitler’s obsession with Napoleon’s failure. Any chance you could discuss something like that? I’d like to hear your take, especially if we’ve learned more since the PBS series.
In the case of Poland i would translate Blitzkrieg by treacherous/vicious attack , no warning , no war declaration . Thanks for this thorough research.
Thanks to Adam Adkins for researching this episode. In so many ways it's our community who keep TimeGhost going. If you want to be part of this then join the TimeGhost Army on www.patreon.com/timeghosthistory or timeghost.tv.
You should also check out Chieftain's video on German Panzer doctrine for added context: th-cam.com/video/pbKAg4SRW_U/w-d-xo.html
Please let us know what other Bio's you'd like to see. And if you would like to know something about a smaller topic, make sure to submit that as a question for our Q&A series, Out of the Foxholes. You can do that right here: community.timeghost.tv/c/Out-of-the-Foxholes-Qs.
Cheers,
Francis
*RULES OF CONDUCT*
STAY CIVIL AND POLITE we will delete any comments with personal insults, or attacks.
AVOID PARTISAN POLITICS AS FAR AS YOU CAN we reserve the right to cut off vitriolic debates.
HATE SPEECH IN ANY DIRECTION will lead to a ban.
RACISM, XENOPHOBIA, OR SLAMMING OF MINORITIES will lead to an immediate ban.
PARTISAN REVISIONISM, ESPECIALLY HOLOCAUST AND HOLODOMOR DENIAL will lead to an immediate ban.
Make Russian subtitles,please
Thanks Adam
What about bio's about Jewish scientists that were expelled from Germany and Italy and their contribution to the war effort?
bewegungskrieg - Maneuver warfare/ mechanized fire power and maneuver concepts
Chick Parsons, Billy Mitchell, Ernest Evans, Arleigh Burke
Man, all the build up to invasion of the USSR is creating a level of tension I didn’t know could exist.
What invasion of the USSR? Germany and the USSR are allies remember.
Yeah what invasion? This guy is talking nonsense we all know that Germany and USSSR are allies send him to gulag!
Lies from the Allies!
What about the droid attack on the wookies?
Stop provoking Germany!
The real Blitzkrieg was the friends we made along the way
Lmao
What i dont understand pls eksplain
Jah
Lol
Yo what this comment tho
Only 1 Minute in and the comments have been blitzkrieged already.
:Song "Erika" *intensifies:*
maybe they are members that got the preview of the video early,who knows?
I have watched thousands of hours of WW1 & WW2 documentaries. Much of which is very similar, but Indy, Spartacus & the team make the most in depth, inciteful, interesting & entertaining account of events that I have ever seen.
Thanks guys.
Insightful too ;~) This is how it should be done, but the big boys almost never manage - here we have a deeper dive than most of the cartoon level documentary producers will bother with - they sweat the "eyes glaze over" issue and only hit the headlines. This team segregates things nicely. With TimeGhost, we have the "action sequences" and the "character development" along with deep background - all in their own presentations that are of length and depth to communicate, not just fit between advertisements and play to the lowest common denominator. This should be the textbook approach, but someone needs to write that textbook!
Doug Coulter thank you for the spellcheck.
@@garryrowland Just a little fun among the good guys! Hope it's taken that way. Actually, it's a grammar or really, a meaning-check (but I'm not an English-Nazi ... just someone who spots potential for humor now and then.)
Blitzkrieg was invented by German born Australian AIF General Sir John Monash in ww1. Germany used John Monash battle plan in ww2, There are many books about ww2 that say this.
Give Soviet Storm a try; it has wooden acting, but you quickly forget about once you realise they coherent and comprehensive to a level no other documentary on the Eastern Front has. Also, it has a killer soundtrack!
Episode 1 here: th-cam.com/video/97iOxxH_64s/w-d-xo.html
"What's blitzkrig?"
Hoi4 players: make line in map and kill supply.
Force attack
@@lukum55 Wasn't it the spearhead order?
ooga booga turn aggressive attack to full
@@quedtion_marks_kirby_modding yes it is. Though you often want to micromanage your tank divisions for opportune pocket formation.
haha, 40 width tank division go brr
Charles DeGaulle and Mikhail Tukhachevsky you say? They were cellmates as POWs in Ingolstadt fortress during WWI.
Tukhachevsky commanded the Soviet invasion of Poland during the Polish-Soviet War in 1920. DeGaulle was in Poland with the French Military Mission as an instructor and was decorated for taking part in operations against the Soviet invasion.
In 1920 Pilsudski defeated Tukhachevsky with a brilliant flanking attack and series of battles in constant motion. It was those manneuvres and deployments that DeGaulle witnessed first-hand. He would later espouse that philosophy in his lectures at the Ecole Militaire and in his published book (1934) on the topic. (His book only sold 700 copies in France but 7000 in Germany where it was studied by Hitler.
DeGaulle and Tukhachevsky met again in 1936 in France. (Tukhachevsky’s train passed through Warsaw and Berlin.) Tukhachevsky was purged (executed) by Stalin in 1937.
During a 1966 visit to the USSR DeGaulle tried unsuccessfully to meet Tukhachevsky’s surviving family members.
Thanks! Very interesting.
Blitzkrieg was invented by German born Australian AIF General Sir John Monash in ww1. Germany used John Monash battle plan in ww2, There are many books about ww2 that say this.
@@ianfarr-wharton1000 He was born in Melbourne
@@PluckYeah from German Jews.
@@ianfarr-wharton1000 Monash was definitely born in Melbourne and while his family occasionally spoke German at home, he grew up in an English speaking society and studied engineering and law at Melbourne University. It has been argued that his background as a full time civil engineer and (initially) only a part time soldier allowed him to view tactics and logistics from a different perspective than officers locked inside the military bubble, and this is how he came up with the type of combined arms warfare that changed everything.
Indy talks about Blitzkrieg, yet my attention is focused on Indy’s coffee mug depicting Indy on the phone.
I want that mug.
Same here, I want it !!
OMG I want that mug😍
Everybody asks "What is Blitzkrieg?" But nobody asks "How is Blitzkrieg?"
I'll do you one better: WHY is blitzkrieg?
@@SamaritanPrime I can't remember which tv series or movie had this line. Could you please tell me?
Blitzkrieg- A surprise attack in a small country when you quickly cover most of the territory . quickly stepping into the neighbor's territory and capturing as much of the territory as possible by surprise, what's so impressive?
@@amulyagupta441 Avengers: Infinity War. It's a reference to a line Drax says when the Guardians of the Galaxy meet Dr. Strange, Iron Man, and Spider-Man.
@@azonezon3219 wrong it is when thousands of motorized and tank divisions rush a nation and take it as quick as they can while bombarding the enemy with bombings
-French High Command: hey Charles, remember that book you wrote that we ignored? the Germans read it and are using your tactics. how do you counter that?
-De Gaulle: defense in depth with minefields, antitank guns, mutually supporting strong points and an armoured reserve ready to counter attack.
Battle of France looks like the Battle of Kursk
And Sturmovik ground attack bombers grinding their infantry and non armoured artillery.
And don't forget to blow up our own gas stations to stop the panzers from refueling..
Kudos to this channel for uploading so often with good stuff
Invasion of Russia is getting more hyped than infinity war
... and is far more deserving of the hype. If you don't know the history of it, hang onto your seat. It's going to be a bumpy ride!
@@nicholasconder4703 I didn't watched any of those MCU movies, but I am hyped as fuck for this !
What is this Russia you speak of? Russia does not exist as a state, it is but part of the great Soviet Union, and no one will invade that. It is allies with Germany, has kicked Japan's arse and the evil capitalist- imperialist in Britain has nothing to invade with after the great German victories in France.
You silly person.
@@PalleRasmussen Well, if you want to slice rabbits, err, split hares, err, split hairs, that's fine by me.
Wow more hyped? You guys don't read history do you?
Hmmm, how to decribe Blitzkrieg...
Oh, here we go:
"
Fast as the wind, the invasion has begun...
Shacking the ground, with the force of thousand guuuns...
First in the line of fire, first into hostile land.
Tanks leading the way
Leading the waaaaaaay...
"
STOP! I've played too much HoI4 with the Sabaton DLC and I can not get that loop out of my head
ALWAYS AHEAD AS THE BLITZKRIEG RAGES ON!
These lyrics gave me the shivers. Absolute masterpiece.
@@alexamerling79 BREAKING MORALE WITH THE SOUND OF BALZING GUNS
Maneuver warfare - bewegungskrieg
I feel sorry for de Gaulle. He knew what's up, he tried to tell them, but the usual general staff incompetence stopped him.
Don't feel to sorry for him. After the war he became president of France
@@jelkrette1955 I actually have a personal connection with him. My gradfather was a desk officer until they learned of his perfect French fluency. He was immediately transferred to translation work, and was de Gaulle's interpreter on one occasion (a press conference, I believe).
Avanti Curecanti That sounds like a really cool anecdote =)
@@jelkrette1955 Not in the best circumstances once again. The both time he got engaged in politics it was in times of turmoil for France :-(
No one believed de Gaulle because he told them the truth
"sir the germans they broke through at sedan"
"Don't worry our men would stop them"
"But sir they have arrived at arras"
"Wait what you just said"
"Sir we are cut off at dunkirk we need to evacuate"
"WHAT"
I think never before has your "signature phrase" been this accurate, Indy:
This is modern War
Blitzkrieg was invented by German born Australian AIF General Sir John Monash in ww1. Germany used John Monash battle plan in ww2, There are many books about ww2 that say this.
@@ianfarr-wharton1000 yeah,combined warfare was created in WW1 too,and some say there were early attempts at doing something akin to Blitzkrieg,in the reign of Frederick the great of Prussia,as far as I'm aware.
@@ianfarr-wharton1000 I don't think we can just declare that one guy invented it. "Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen" (combined arms warfare) und "Bewegungskrieg" (war of movement) have both been pioneered in ww1 by both sides (within their industrial capabilites). The allies deployed tanks and aircrafts on a large scale, while germany und austria developed the stormtroops. Combining those elements among others...
I think we can see its effects. Not to mention italian (arditi) and russian developments
@@maximilianolimamoreira5002 General Sir John Monash, his mum and dad where Prussian Jews. So may be he was a fan of Frederick , even if he was born in Australia.
@@ianfarr-wharton1000 yes,probably,i am somewhat of a fan of Frederick the great and his tactics too,because for the time he reigned,his tactics were kind of revolutionary,but with the french revolutionary wars,they became obsolete.
"Never, ever, ever, ever" - *Indy Neidell is an international treasure whom must be protected at all costs.*
truer words have never been spoken!
"Protected at all costs?" Try cloned at all costs.
Whot is blitzkrieg ?
Is basicaly me coming inside your house and eat your food before you noticed that the fridge open
More accurate than you think. My fridge is empty right now, and so was the USSR's fridge in '41.
Good video! I find the term 'Bewegungskrieg' to be much more fitting.
More accurate, but it won't catch on since it's a weird mouthful for foreigners.
You want to watch Citino's lectures here on youtube, or better yet; buy his books. He is a nice chap and great scholar.
It is a word TIK uses in his videos over Blitzkrieg.
TIK suck$
@@valta5063 TIK has gone off the rails.
The Soviets may have developed a comprehensive Deep Operation doctrine in the early 1930s, but Stalin's purges killed a most of the officers who were versed in it. The Red Army may have to relearn it the hard way while fighting the Germans.
One key innovation of Deep Operations is the unintuitive tactic of not leading with the tanks. Instead, less mobile infantry and artillery are used to create a breach in the enemy lines. Once a breakthrough is made, fresh tank and mobile forces are sent through the breach. This means they don't have to spend their men and resources on the breakthrough, and can instead focus on the mobile warfare phase.
SPOILER
The Soviet offensive at Kharkov in 1942 will show some aspects of it but the Germans' superior communications and coordination will turn early Soviet gains into a heavy defeat, as the attackers are encircled. By and large the Soviets preferred attacks on a wider front later, with perhaps two main axes of advance, as this exploited the Germans' relative lack of reserves.
gargravarr...ok, so where did you get this name for yourself? Back to my comment, as bad as Lenin was (he was no saint as far muredrs go), he recognized the faults Stalin had - he only wanted to be in charge of the entire country and anyone against him, was dangerous and would die. He actually warned all candidates for the position of leader that Stalin shouldn'be allowed (voted out) as leader because he wasn't smart enough. This occurred before Lenin died. Stalin figured this last bit and his paranoia caused the deaths of all the generals who didn't tell him what he wanted to hear (as Hitler did by the way!). Although Hitler's generals weren't killed (except for Rommel who "committed suicide" for the failure in N Africa).
@@marinazagrai1623 forgive my ignorance if I'm wrong but wasn't Rommel killed because he was implicated in the July 20th plot?
@@agustintrivino9365
Correct, though the key word, which you mentioned, is 'implicated'. Whilst he may have had some vague knowledge of a likely plot within the military, there's no evidence that he was directly involved.
His name came up in subsequent interrogations of captured plotters, who had wanted to bring him into the plan but whom Rommel had kept at arms length. Rommel didn't want to get involved in any dangerous schemes and was uncomfortable with the idea of bumping off Hitler.
If he had been forced into suicide for North Africa, he would have died in 1943, not 1944.
Charles de Gaulle's book also specifically mentioned the weaknesses in the French defenses. It was a great blueprint for how to invade France.
The combinations of several types of units in Blitzkrieg reminds me of the creeping barrage strategy in WW1
"Blitzkrieg" which isn't a real term the Germans used but whatever was very much a continuation of what the British used in 1918 with their combined arms warfare
The basic principles of combined arms warfare have been the same since they were first developed, no matter the technology being used. If you've ever read about the Boer War you can see the same kinds of techniques being developed by the British to dislodge the Boers from their dug-in positions, instead of the typical artillery-then-infantry-than-cavalry style of 19th Century warfare.
I've read about this topic, I've watched films about it, I've played games about it. But when Indy talks about it, I enjoy every second of it 🙂 Indy, thank you for being such an interesting and passionate host! And thanx all of you guys and girls from WW2 channel for such a great show! Two thumbs up 👍🏻👍🏻
THANK YOU for being one of those few youtube channels to recognise and highlight the misuse of the word, and especially the wrong interpretation of its origin
I know, I clicked on this video thinking, boy can't wait to be preached some british propaganda by another ww2 channel, then he actually knew what he was talking about, so I am pleasantly surprised
You are very welcome:)
There is a genuine genius to these videos. I haven't yet had the pleasure seeing them all but apparently each episode covers a week of the war as it happened and in chronological order, so the issues prevelant at the time being featured are given a much better than average attention and focus, where many if not all other presentations seem rushed and so gloss over key points. With these episodes I am left feeling as though I have a deeper understanding and appreciation rather than just having been overwhelmed by verbal catchphrases and visual clutter that other producers cobble together. Each instalment is Clear, concise and totally captivating from begining to end. Thankyou.
4:19 isn't "German tanks" per se: those are mock tanks, coverings for the car, for field exercise purposes.
He did say "Trains his forces"
Correct, they are faux tanks. Germany had the same problems the US Army did in the Inter-war years with insufficient funds to buy weapons, and then painting "TANK" on a truck and tarting it up some. Not until after Hitler became Chancellor that there was money to develop tanks in a large scale.
"I'll let you guys fight it out in the comments..." Never was a more true statement spoken on this channel.
Thank you for also mentioning the Soviet theory of deep battle which is mostly ignored atleast in popular history of WWII.
I've only heard of it from wikipedia. Never from a documentary
How could I not? They did it first in every way.
@@adamadkins9210 Yes I know right. But for some reason it is mostly ignored by historians.
I hope this is finding you and the team well. Doing research a couple decades ago on this topic, a few hundred books in German mostly, I appreciate your teams work. My 11 year old, is engaged and learning, without the reading, with your documentary. Thank you. My little contribution doesn’t buy you a glass of beer anywhere these days, but maybe have one on occasion anyway. Cheers
Love this tie-waistcoat combo, Indy. Stylish. 4.5/5
He looks like a blackjack dealer.
Thanks! Credit for Indy's fashion goes to Astrid (as usual)
Keep it up. Only recently found this channel but i already love it. I'm absolutely gonna stick around for the next 4 years.
Hobart was a genius. Also, held the rank of Private in the Home Guard at the start of the war.
He's definitely one of the more interesting characters of the war. Have they already done a biography special on him? If not, I'm looking forward to it. Also looking forward to (SPOILER ALERT) his work prepping for the Allied landings in Europe.
And there was me thinking he was that kid from the iron giant
Hobart had absolutely no clue of understanding combined arms doctrine. Tank advocates are not inherently proponents of proper doctrine. See every battle in North Africa as proof.
Thanks for summarizing all this in a video. This is one of the most valuable ones that the team has made.
Glad you liked it. You are very welcome. There is plenty more where this came from .
"Wow that was so fast," mumbled the British, still getting out of bed.
Deary me, did they even stop for tea?
My father fought in WWII and thats what they said about the Italians.
At least give us chance to make a cup of tea!
The British expeditionary force more or less had its act together during the battle of France, the French on the other hand...
You guys rock, every episode is better than the previous one.
Thanks! Here's to many more.
I liked the video just for the "nevereva, eva, eva, eva, eva" at the end.
Thank God you are here to teach us that! I don't know where I would have learned it if it wasn't for you video.
Great to hear! Glad you like our content.
I've heard some theorist calling blitzkrieg as sheer recklessness, since it ignores the necessary logistics to supply the advancing army. Yet, such recklessness often worked, depending on the will power an resourcefulness of the enemy to resist.
You need to do two things; erase the term Blitzkrieg from your mind, watch Citino's lectures here on youtube, or read his books. You will learn about The German Way of War.
Specialist member, being in the Time ghost Army is awesome. Just love your shows .
And it's awesome to have you with us. Thanks for the support. It's people like you who literally keep us going.
Life is just like Belgium, you have to get through it.
What about Luxembourg then?
Czechoslovak lietunant Ferdinand Otto Miksche (also author and military theorist, in WWII in services of the Free France) published a book about it in London (1941) with simple title ,,Blitzkrieg", impressively describing that tactics. Greetings from The Czech Republic and great thanks for your amazing channel!
Last time I was this early Rhineland was still demilitarised.
Good One
God I fucking hate this joke. Why couldn't it have died alongside "Darude - Sandstorm" and "This is Bob"?
@@lorddashdonalddappington2653 noone cares about your opinion
@@Nothing-1w3 lmao, guess we're peas in a pod then.
@@lorddashdonalddappington2653
May I have a question? Why do you have flag of United Communes of Britain as your profile picture, when you have "lord" in your username. I thought communists hate aristorcracy?
Thank you Indy and team. I'm working on aspects of a 'Great Patriotic War' game and your description of the attributes of 'blitzkrieg' (bewegungskrieg) and deep battle have given me much food for thought. I observe that you suggest Khalkhin Gol was deep battle in practice. I recall The Chieftain suggesting such was not the case when he discussed the development of Soviet Armor and doctrine. My perception of Khalkhin Gol was that it was a use of combined arms to achieve a classic 'Cannae' double envelopment of the enemy. It's my perception that many of the proponents of deep battle (Tukhachevsky's protégés) were purged and the Red Army given over to the strategic defensive with a counterstroke at the opportune moment. It's also my perception the Tukhachevsky intended the mechanized corps (of three brigades, not divisions) for deep penetration while the brigades were intended for infantry support, breakthrough and cavalry-like envelopment. Zhukov had tank brigades not mechanized corps. I don't believe a case can be made that Khalkhin Gol was an example of deep battle.
"Could have learned from Khalkhin Gol" is such an weird though because it would had been next to impossible for any western army to know about it in detail or even place it on the map. It would had been next to impossible to any outside observer write about it in detail as it was on very remote location to begin with and with war in Europe on the doorsteps nobody would had even bothered with any such report.
Only side that really though about it in detail that much was Japan which reaction was "Oh shit! We need to rethink entirely our tank concept and we need more modern airplanes. Also, we really can't go directly agaisnt Soviet Union as of now". Soviets really took it as "proof in concept" and demand for more trucks.
Also why would japan report abt a decicive defeat?
@@barnabasverti9690 And then my question would be how? How any western armies would had been able to obtain accurate information or draw the exactly right conclusions from it or any army in that matter.
And somehow you would had to convince higher ups that this border skirmish shows how wars should be fought when new european war was kicking off. And probably get send to nearest mental asulym for such claims.
Everything is way easier said then done in hindsight. Especially for a battle that really became decades later actually known.
@@barnabasverti9690 Ok, lets move past unknown/known information as I can't really find about it that well. That can be kinda subjective.
But I am not going to swallow that armies were negligent when not taking note on Khalkin Khol (well western ones anyway) as it could had been that Khalkin Khol happened too late to be used as example and studied on. Main battles happened in August and hostilities formally ended in middle of September, weeks after war had started.
And when there would had been information there was other things to be done. I mean, Germans would rather use their experience in Poland as basis for any changes in their army and Britain/French were too busy mobilizing and rearming that any sudden changes to it could had disturbed it too much. And the fact that Britain/French were determined that it would transform into a repeat of repeat of last time certainly didn't make changes easy.
So lets say Khalkin Khol happened year or 2 earlier then it certainly is possible that it would have impact on things like Spanish civil war had on employment on air power. If.
@@barnabasverti9690 Good points. Although I do remember NATO planners in the 1980s spending a good deal of time studying the bocage battles in Normandy of 1944 to glean ideas for confronting the anticipated Soviet massed armored attack through the Fulda Gap.
The people working for this channel have the coolest names
Deep battle is just a rich man's blitzkrieg
Dispelling this myth is so important! I hope a lot of people see this!
Could you make a special episode about Halder since there isn't a lot covering him and his role in the war?
check out TIK on youtube. He talks about Halder quite often.
@@wesleykamerer6154 Halderp
He's on the longlist so we will likely cover him at some point in the future.
Concise, energetic, competent, and informative. Good show.
Thank you :)
O ye. This is my jam
Rewatching these episodes now that the series is almost at the end.
9:35 i dont really know if the sickle stroke analogy works for the germans here...
The crooked cross stroke!
"What's so good about a sickle?" "Well, nothing, and if there's one thing we've learnt in the last thousand miles of retreat it's that Russian agriculture is in dire need of mechanisation."
@@abeherbert6603 Still the best line in that sketch!
The problem with applying this during Barbarossa was that Germany overextended their advance after achieving penetration. This meant that supply lines became too long and infantry support become too thin with both incapable of keeping up. So the mechanized groups ran out of supplies and reinforcements while the breakthroughs couldn't be effectively contained and exploited.
Germany was sprinting, and that had worked well in their previous engagements, but Russia was a marathon.
The explanation I find most applicable, and one I cannot properly recall who presented. Germany won a series of regional wars quite comfortably with the tactics and resources developed. However because Germany failed to acknowledge and understand the logistical demands and the resources required to wage a general war they could not prevail at that next level.
Germany's only chance of strategic victory was in the use of a large submarine fleet to starve Britain into submission.
However, Germany would still have had to keep United States out of the war so as to gain unhindered access to the resources of the empire of France and the industrial capacity of Great Britain before taking on the Soviet Union.
Remember, the Soviet Red Army was highly mechanized, the British and Commonwealth forces and American forces completely mechanized.
That it took almost the entire industrial capacity of the world to defeat Germany is telling yet that effort also obscures that Germany woefully misunderstood logistics.
And, very little is yet made of the fact, because of the eugenics policies of the Nazis being paramount to all else, the SS controlled half of the logistical capacity of the European rail system for the purposes of the concentration and death camps and at a prority of equipment draw and routing precedence than the German military even until the last days.
Sounds like Victor Davis Hanson
Was that Citino in The German Way of War maybe?
And frankly they failed pretty horribly to build up their U-boat fleet to the numbers required for that strategic campaign and wasted resources on surface ships. (Schnell boats aside)
Strike with air force and artillery.Use the chaos and confusion to to flank and trap the enemy with armored units and leave the infantry for the final blow.
the germans took verdun in a day, that how strong the "tactic" was
Indy.....love the mug! :) Thank you for explaining this because everyone always talks about "Blitzkrieg" all the time.
What is on Indy's tie I cant figure out that pattern.
It's part of a deception tactic.
Outstanding analysis.
Thanks
So just when USSR is getting progressive with its military, Stalin decided to cut it down (remove/kill most of its officers). It will take quite some time in the WW2 until they are able to regain their tactical upper hand, but even then the lingering results of the purges will still be felt.
this work is so greatly made , wow !!
3:30 its kinda bizarre and counter intuitive to me to say its best to have the soft squishy meatbags walk in front of the giant armored machines with guns. But maybe thats just me.
that's because they were seeing tanks as mobile armoured artillery, to do the job of artillery during deep penetrations. WW1 tanks had a speed similar to infantry.
The soft squishy meatbags can take cover pretty quickly when they come under fire.
They can see hidden enemy positions a lot better. Imagine this:
Take some big pieces of cardboard to cover all the windows in your car then cut out a couple small slits to look through. Then try to drive through town or even just a big box store parking lot. Preferably one you've not been to before. That'd be a bit dangerous even without people shooting at you you big guns or sneaking up to bust a window and drop a grenade or molotov cocktail inside.
Then it makes more sense why you'd want some soft squishy meatbags walking ahead and around you I think.
For the meatbags trying to charge or outflank a machine position is a bit of a risky thing, but if you've got a tank with a mg or two of it's own and big gun then you just take cover and a big bang or two later from the tank you can get about your day. So it's a win-win for everybody.
great video as always indy, but you forgot one thing: never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever say never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever
I am not sure about the success of the Soviets against the Japanese being thanks to the doctrine of deep battle.
With such a massive superiority in troops, material and quality of material could there have been any different outcome?
It could’ve turned out like Finland.
Finland ,,winter,snow,swamps forests,no roads...mongolia = steppes..clear views...
Until the arrival of Zhukov, a lot of the fighting at Khalkin Gol was very much see-saw, similar to that in China. The Soviet might have been able to beat out the Japanese eventually through a meat grinder (which is something you can prepare yourself for coming next year and the year after that on the show), but deep battle summarily resolved the campaign in a way that was not really considered a serious option before.
If it was a meat grinder than the Japanese would have been able to send more men to the front and win but that was simply not truw
@@DiggingForFacts With Zhukov the extreme numerical superiority came. It happened at the same time basically. Large reinforcements and a new commander
Great vid!
Thanks!
"No, you can't just invade with motorized divisions supported by air power!"
"Haha, blitzkrieg go vroom"
That part about German commanders being given the objective but leaving it up to them on how to achieve it was a real sore point for Hitler when they invaded Russia. He wanted them to go somewhere but they'd go somewhere else because they felt fighting a battle was more necessary. Lack of coordination between high command and commanders in the field frustrated progress.
The Germans to the France
"We just visiting on holiday!"
The France
"Why in military formations?"
The Germans
"To Honor Napoleon! We come in Peace!"
The France
"Ok but watch out for the British! "
"They been busy taking up all the best food and liquor!"
"They tell us Remember Great War!" "We match together toward the German machine guns and Artillery!"
The French " OMG ! YOU ARE ALL DRUNK AND FALLING DOWN DRUNK!"
THE Germans
"We knew it! The British have eaten the best food and liquor!"
"We have to come back after June 1941 after we take holiday in Soviet Union!"
Another awesome episode.
I'm gonna call it ACHTUNG PANZER!!!! Because that is what the German soldier is going to see when the Soviet strikes
Deep battle has a different definition in modern usage. It is the area of operations beyond the brigade zone of operations. This effectively means areas the brigade will not see or cannot range with direct fire are given to elements attached to higher headquarters to target. So much of the aircraft, non direct support artillery, and some other assets will be working on special missions of attrition, interdiction, etc.
Love hearing you immediately debunk the idea of a Blitzkrieg Doctrine
The word Blitzkrieg was not developed by the Nazis, it was made up by the British Press, or do you mean like modern Neo Nazi?
Yea, it is not a Nazi myth; it is the invention of a British journalist.
uh, the Blitzkreig wasn't a nazi invention lol. Did you watch the video? it's an allied excuse for their failures. It looks better to say the Germans and their damned blitzkrieg got us, rather than man we sucked and the germans capitalized on us. Nonetheless, advances in communication and movement of troops led to a lot of success still, one of the reasons ww2 dint become trench warfare is because of the ardennes which were unguarded, then Dunkirk as a result defeated the British in France, and ultimately led to panzers racing towards Paris, ussr was big enough that being mobile was the only option
Normen is right in that it's so much a "classic Nazi myth". But that won't stop us from busting it.
Just wanted to say thanks for your most excellent work, and contributions. Your content and presentation are exemplary. This applies to this effort and your most excellent and unprecedented body of work related to WWI.
You're welcome!
Me:
Lizard brain: heeeeee tank go brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
Another important figure who could be mentioned as an influencer in the "blitzkrieg's" development is a Swissman called Antoine-Henry Jomini. He was a commander and strategist back in the Napoleonic Wars. He was the first actually to define the idea of a concentrated attack on deep lines. As such, Jomini is deemed the establisher of the modern concept of strategy we have today. He was a pioneer when bringing the idea of strategy closer to an outlook now we understand as scientific. Before him strategy and war were viewed somewhat more like an art.
I just have this funny feeling something big is going to happen on Monday. Can't put my finger on it.
Minecraft is finally releasing the Nether Update around the same time. Gonna be hard to decide between them and TH-cam that day.
Germany will invade Turkey, broken codes uncovered a operation named "Barbarossa". They better be careful when crossing any shallow, slow flowing rivers
this is such a great channel, keep it up !!!
Make Russian subtitles,please!
A lot of these doctrines are continuations of older traditions.
German doctrine way before the Great War stresses independence. Junior commanders need to know their part in the greater operation. They will encounter unforeseen opportunities and problems which they need the authority to react to. You can't set up a plan with timetable, you set up objectives and try to give junior commanders the tools to get there.
Never ever ever miss one ever ever
this channel always loves to belittle then Germany one way or another!
🙃
This chanel is just insane of quality
Thanks for that!
6:54 This is due to the main difference between both armies: the Wehrmacht started off as a professional highly trained force without a manpower advantage over the enemy, whereas the Red Army started off almost the opposite way, a conscription-based force which has both a manpower advantage over their enemies and a large amount of units that must be effectively coordinated in order to archieve success. Both armies have their command theories based on the proposals by Clausewitz, with the commanders in the field having a mayor role, but in the case of the Soviets at this point most of their officer corps lacks experience due to both the purges and the sped-up rearmament of the USSR in the 1930s.
Rodemos, dentro de pocos días el psicópata asesino de Hitler apuñalará por la espalda a su, hasta ese momento, ALIADO Stalin, otro psicópata asesino. El que invadió el este de Polonia (de donde salió huyendo por patas en los años 20), ocupó los países Bálticos, y se tuvo que conformar con un 15% del territorio finlandés después de perder cientos de miles de soldados.
Basically Germans (more specifically: Prussians) always yearned to fight the "Bewegungskrieg" (war of movement, war of manover) in contrast to a war of attrition. They actually planned to execute this style of war for ww1 as well until the reality of tranch warfare hit them hard. One major difference between ww1 and ww2 was the avaiability of tanks and mechanized infantry transport, enabling the Germans to fight their war of movement.
Don´t forget the influence of the development of Auftragstaktik doctrine (misison-type tactics) and Stoßtrupp tactics during WW1 that valued individual decisions of junior COs and NCOs and the need to improvise under changing battlefield conditions. This stands in strong contrast to order-type tactics that demand a great plan and everyone to stick to it.
Without a strong culture of independent thinking based on a decades-long grooming of COs and NCOs in Auftragstaktik doctrine it would be debateable if Germany would have had so much success in the early years of the war.
@@fortvaux Definitely. But even with the objective oriented tactic, a war of maneuver wouldn't haven been possible without said techincal advancements. The point I wanted to make was that the concept of "Blitzkrieg" wasn't invented in ww2, but merely put to perfection.
Well, they still didn't actually had enough trucks, fuel and other equipment to develop to the fullest.
As Indy points out, the British invented _"blitzkrieg"._ First used in force at the Battle of Amiens in 1918. The first ever combined operation of tanks, air (over 400 planes used), ground troops and artillery. It effectively ended WW1.
Prof Adam Tooze in _Wages of Destruction,_ points out that Germany did not take the initiative, stating that Manstein's plans was a *one-shot* plan that could fail on many points. If it did the Whremacht was spent as an offensive force. He clearly puts it that the Panzers could have been stopped and reasonably easily too. The reason for the massive and swift German victory was to Allied incompetence, mainly French, rather than German brilliance. This is not the popular view.
Adam Tooze, Wages of Destruction:
Page 371.
_"The German army that invaded France in May 1940 was far from being a carefully honed weapon of modern armoured warfare. Of Germany's 93 combat ready divisions on May 10 1940, only 9 were Panzer divisions, with a total of 2.438 tanks between them. These units faced a French army that was more heavily motorised, with 3,254 tanks in total."_
Dutch, Belgian, UK & French tanks in total was 4,200 tanks. The BEF was a fully motorised army, no horses were used to tow guns or supplies, unlike the German army, which was mainly horse drawn.
_"the majority of the German tanks sent into battle in 1940, were inferior to the their French, British and Belgian counterparts"._
Tooze, page 371/372.
_"Nor should one accept unquestioningly the popular idea that the concentration of the Germans tanks in specialised tank divisions gave them a decisive advantage. Many French tanks were scattered amongst the infantry units, but with their ample stock of vehicles the French could afford to do this. The bulk of France's best tanks were concentrated in armoured units, that, on paper at least, were every bit a match for the Panzer divisions."_
Tooze Page 454:
_"Fundamentally the Wehrmacht was a "poor army". The fast striking motorised element of the Germans army in 1941 consisted of only 33 divisions of 130. Three-quarters of the German army continued to rely on more traditional means of traction: foot and horse. The German army in 1941 invaded the Soviet Union with somewhere between 600,000 and 740,000 horses. The horses were not for riding. They were for moving guns, ammunition and supplies."_
_"The vast majority of Germany's soldiers marched into Russia, as they had in France, on foot."_
The BEF did not march. The first motorised army. After Normandy most troops went by motor transport.
_"But to imagine a fully motorised Wehrmacht, poised for an attack on the Soviet Union is a fantasy of the Cold War, not a realistic vision of the possibilities of 1941. To be more specific, it is an American fantasy. The Anglo-American invasion force of 1944 was the only military force in WW2 to fully conform to the modern model of a motorised army."_
Tooze, page 373:
_"In retrospect, it suited neither the Allies nor the Germans to expose the amazingly haphazard course through which the Wehrmacht had arrived at its most brilliant military success. The myth of the Blitzkrieg suited the British and French because it provided an explanation other than military incompetence for their pitiful defeat. But whereas it suited the Allies to stress the alleged superiority of German equipment, Germany's own propaganda viewed the Blitzkrieg in less materialistic terms."_
Prof Tooze:
_"The success of the German attack on France in May 1940 may, therefore, defy explanation in terms of a simple logic of 'brute force’. But to imagine that the balance of material forces was irrelevant to the outcome is to fall prey to voluntarism. The Wehrmacht did not overturn the basic rules of war. The victory of May 1940 is not a mysterious event explicable only in terms of the uncanny elan of the German army and the unwillingness of the French to fight. The odds facing Germany were not good. But they were not so bad that they could not be overcome by superior planning and manoeuvre. A close analysis of the mechanics of the Blitzkrieg reveals the astonishing degree of concentration achieved, but also the enormous gamble that Hitler and the Wehrmacht leadership were taking on 10 May. Precisely because it involved such a concentrated use of force, Manstein's plan was a_ *_'one-shot affair'._*
_"If the initial assault had failed, and it could have failed in many ways, the Wehrmacht as an offensive force would have been spent. The gamble paid off._ *_But contrary to appearances, the Germans had not discovered a patent recipe for military miracles._* _The overwhelming success of May 1940, resulting in the defeat of a major European power in a matter of weeks,_ *_was not a repeatable outcome._* _In fact, when we appreciate the huge risks involved in Manstein's plan, the attack on France appears more similar to the Wehrmacht's other great gamble, the attack on the Soviet Union in June 1941, than is commonly supposed._
_"On both occasions, the Wehrmacht held no significant forces in reserve. In both campaigns, the Germans gambled on achieving decisive success in the opening phase of the assault. Anything less spelled disaster. The very different outcomes are fully explicable in terms of conventional military logic. Against an opponent with a greater margin of material superiority, with better leadership and with more space in which to manoeuvre, the basic Napoleonic criterion for military success - superior force at the decisive point - would be far harder, if not impossible to achieve. Inspired soldiering could only do so much."_
Never clicked on notification so fast. Love this channel!!!
We hope you weren't disappointed. We love you too!
The armies of late WW I are something like proto-WW II armies. They are starting to develop doctrines we think of as modern and remove the last vestiges of napoleonic warfare.
One of those is combined arms. The powers of 1918 know that artillery, air observers, infantry, infiltrators, early mechanized units etc can work together and crush a defended position. What they don't have is the communications capacity to pull it together. It's people waving flags, laying out field telephone lines, runners and following detailed timetables who try to put these combined arms ideas into practice. It works awesome for a few days when everyone is on schedule and easy to reach, but breaks down when units get stuck in and out of communications reach, and when circumstances change in the field.
Outstanding ! Great video
Thanks!
I remember the PBS series Battlefield from the 90s that included the Wehrmacht’s plans for Operation Barbarossa in detail, including the multiple drafts it went through and Hitler’s obsession with Napoleon’s failure. Any chance you could discuss something like that? I’d like to hear your take, especially if we’ve learned more since the PBS series.
Great shows.
In the case of Poland i would translate Blitzkrieg by treacherous/vicious attack , no warning , no war declaration . Thanks for this thorough research.
It's 11 men rushing 1 man holding a football
YES!! this dude is back!
For me, what was called Blitzkrieg was basically WW1 Hutier tactics with the addition of tanks, and aircraft giving ground support.
Good author to read on this topic is Rob Citino.
Great work
Love the cup!!
Many people don’t realize that Georgi Zhukov was the fifth Beatle.
I don't think even he knew.
Indy, I need that mug.
Great explaintion
And in Yugoslavia and Greece, it was proven that the Blitzkrieg tactics work well even in a mountainous terrain...