new merchandise is out, including The German Squad (1941) and various Tiger, Stug & Panzer shirts and posters. Check out everything here: teespring.com/stores/military-history-visualized
As far as I know, Poland was in middle of reforming its army in 1939 and expected to finish modernization till 1941. Modernization included: * introduction of new semi-automatic rifle: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kbsp_wz._1938M * modification of current stock of Browning wz.28 * retrofit of tanketes TKS en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TKS armed with 20mm nkm ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nkm_wz.38_FK ) * introduction of 9TP tanks ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9TP ) * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10TP * en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14TP * completing Central Industrial Region in region between Radom and Kielce, which would boost industrial capacity of Poland. Some sources state that Germany had not posses replenish losses after invasion of Poland until end of 1939. I heard that some of supply reports stated that after action in Poland, German Army had almost depleted ammunition and if Poles would destroy ammo depots near Puławy and Radom, Germany would not been able to fight after last week of September due to ammo shortage. Poland wasn't ready in 1939, Germany also, USSR also... that was the point - every country was preparing for war. Poland prepped itself against Soviet Union. If Hitler would waited till 1941-1942 (estimated that this would cause Wermaht to be at full capacity ready for war) then he would have trouble against Poland or Britain! (well, not so much against France, which lost war due to poor leadership - against popular belief leadership was at fault not courage of soldiers ;) )
Military History Visualized Could you do a video on why the Germans failed to drive back the Allies on D-Day? AKA why the German defensive plans didn't work.
@@mertaliataboyraz8933 I think France begins with the largest army. Though not fully trained, and not fully equipped. But you can Invade USSR with Germany, even in 1937, due to Stalin Purges.
one of the biggest realizations i have had about ww2 is that a great great many people only see the military and strategic/tactical aspects of the war. "had hitler done this, went with this etc etc" without realizing a crucial but generally overlooked aspect of warfare, the economy. hitler was in a race against time, his economic recovery was at worst a bubble, and at best a stop gap measure, built and propped up on loans etc. second, the biggest factor of him losing the war was a matter of economics, the allies (the US and Soviets in particular) were constantly outproducing them towards the latter stage of the war. the blitzkrieg was a genius strategy, but ultimately an extremely necessary one, they literally had to finish the wars because they literally could not afford prolonging it, hence why a center piece of hitler's grand strategy was for Britain to be knocked out in the war via capitulation or peace treaty
this youtuber has made a video that Blitzkrieg was a myth, and the way that German divisions worked during the 2nd World War was just a continuation of German military doctrine. Try this video th-cam.com/video/LCNw2e-Zehw/w-d-xo.html
Could not afford prolonging it? It took the soviets to get in berlin 5 years while germans had 4 fronts while being bombed still standed on their feet pretty well
Excellent video. Logistics and economics, the most important factors in modern warfare, are usually ignored in favor of a recitation of tank and airplane stats.
Remember that professional soldiers rarely discuss tactics. They discuss _logistics._ As my old police force sergeant used to say, _"Be the firstest with the mostest."_
Territory is at least as important as logistics and economics. Without open sea lanes/skies and territory in proximity to the enemy you won’t be able to employ any of those resources. For instance the USSR & China were heavily dependent on US supplies sent via the North Sea & Burma/India. If Britain had been knocked out of the war, those sea lanes and land bridges would not have been accessible. There would have been no N.African front and no invasion of Italy. There would have been no D-Day.
1:40 My grandfather was one of those who joined the TA in February 1939. Poor bugger was called up on the 1st of September for ‘duration or war’ and didn’t get demobbed until 1946. He’d only joined up to earn a few extra quid to marry my nan 😂
Ha, same for my grandfather :) , TA srgt then sent to the jocks for some odd reason(he was from London) was sent home after flies bit him and made him sick during the burning of Bergan-Belsen.
That’s why the British/Canadians won the war of 1812. Outnumbered 10 to one, as soon as war was declared we attacked. Some places found out their country had declared war by waking up to redcoats at the gates.
The loose tea leaf was the norm. Tea bagging your snaggletoothed neighbors is what they were busy doing while the brown shirt was on the rise. Damn, all the institution of higher learning and not one dentist? Lazy Limey subservient fucks. Should have concentrated on Britain first, less on the eastern front. So many of you so called patriotic sheep remember why is a country in the first place. Any unwilling conscript in a German uniform is and was more patriotic than any left leaning pathetic loser liberal. Who will cry for you in 100 years. Who will write your history in books and on net ? Will the writing be in this English text or Arabic? Or???? Bunch of cry baby losers! Get over your self. And begin to consider the future for your children ( who most likely will kill you in your sleep anyway).
@@18wheels1966 Wake up Magic Merkel has a open door policy, you have two million Turkish plus in Germany and rising, that's just the turk's, its funny you call Germany patriotic but its the British who are breaking away from your liberal EU, the British who are taking back control of our borders and sea's and immigration. And you cannot win a war with patriotic fervour, how many patriotic Germans stopped bullet's on the Eastern Front millions. And here is a idea instead of bending over and taking it up the arse from Macron and the French, why not align with the UK the French are the lead weight that are pulling down Germany and the EU.
Was sitting in my armchair sipping tea watching a serious video about a serious question about WW2 when, all of a sudden and without warning, the guy pops a joke about petrol and dark humour. I almost spit my baguette out.
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I don't know if you've answer this question elsewhere, but I've been wondering what the outcome would have been if the General staff had opposed Hitler's plans to invade the USSR & then either assassinated him or imprisoned him? That would have left Germany only at war with the British Empire. Would Germany have been able to defeat Britain if it dramatically boosted its spending on aircraft and made a serious effort to gain air superiority over Britain and the The Channel over the following few years, basically playing 'defence' until a clear advantage had been achieved? Like maybe enticing the British navy into the range of its aircraft and then taking them out?
@JJ8KK That scenario definitely would off given Germany an advantage but would off took time for Germany to invade UK (most likely having USA join the war early) and still allowing UK to plan full on defence tactics. Hard to say but I would say it would be close.
@@SharpShadow7 Well, it's a scenario where you'd have to know & be able to project Germany's economic capacity to produce aircraft & ships and hope to be able to match/exceed Britain's capacity, even w/USA help. The extra time this would have given Germany might have made possible its ability to employ those "wonder weapons" it eventually built on a larger scale. It would have been difficult for such a Germany to take on on Britain's Empire at a distance, but UK would have been most vulnerable right at home, no? It would have also required that the "new" Germany--post-Hitler--would have had to change the one strategy that had given it so much early success: the strike fast and hard before your opponent has time to build up his defences. That change in mentality would have probably been difficult, but if the Rommel faction of the General Staff was in charge, and Hitler was out of the way, their natural sense of 'caution' might have made it possible. The simple goal of this Alternative Germany would have been to make the English Channel impassable to British ships and to nevertheless force her to bring her assets there, within range where they could be destroyed, kinda like the Verdun strategy which kinda didn't work out as planned. Avoiding outright war with the USA might not have been possible in the long run, but would have at least have been conceivable over that period of time when the Wonder Weapons could possibly have been brought online... A _lot_ of speculation here...
@@JJ8KK I agree, after all the reasons UK was trying to avoid going into WW2 was because lack off resources from WW1 & a repeat off trench warfare. UK managed to survive in home territory from taking advantage off Hitler's mistakes plus English channel advantage. UK took advantage while Germany was gathering there forces to attack but if all germans troops from the east was attacking UK instead then things would off ended badly for UK (most likely) Without UK, Germany would off had a massive advantage to win the war. Interesting to think off all the possibilities WW2 could off had and what the world would be like today if something slightly had been different.
Same thing with Japan in WW2. America today however , has more than people realize .. it’s just cheaper to buy from overseas because cost of workers and running a business here vs SA.
Germany required the gold reserves of a few countries each year to pay for its rearmament and war costs. This is one of the main reasons for yearly attacks on its neighbours in 1939/40/41
They had realized you dont' need gold or money. You just need access to resources. Germany has a lot of coal and potash. And brains. Leveraging that was what they had to work with.
@CK Lim They took German machinery and other manufactures in trade. Because we live in a time marked by devotion to noclassical economics popularized by the likes of Mises and perpetuated by politicians who pretend that great powers must pay cash & carry like the average working class person - A nation like Germany or USSR did not need to pay British pounds for purchases of things like chromium or tobacco from Turkey or oil from Romania. They traded things like electrical machinery, machine tools, technical expertise, military hardware.
True, and the Panther and Tiger would never be developed and they would be crushed BUT the only reason the KV1 and T34 were able to be made were because Germany gave Russia the tech to make them so yeah, Germany would win
ehm, don't think so. Most of industry in ussr was imported from usa, and engine B-2 was developed for a bomber in 30s. What tech are you talking about? After 1933 germany sold couple of pz-1 and 2 and some fighters, nothing else.Also, in this universe Germans did cooperate with soviets early on. Also, you forget that half of oil germany had for barbarossa was delivered by soviets, so without soviets germany wouldn't have had any oil for barbarossa at all
You are to be saluted for producing clear, informative videos on subjects that are often overlooked. Many people choose to forget that war has a rather large reality component.
Potentially, he invades Austria early. This antagonizes Mussolini, an ally of the Austrofascists, and the first showdown of WWII is between Germany and Italy.
From 1935-1942 Britain commissioned 5 BBs, 5 CVs, 10 CAs, 27 CLs and 117 DDs, Germans only managed 4/0/4/1/37. I think it's fair to say that had they waited longer they still would have just been outmatched by the Royal Navy and USN at war's start regardless.
mPky1 the 'wonder weapons' were never going to win the war, they could have done random damage but never defeat the allies, just anger them. Yes the V weapons were advanced but remember Britain developed the Meteor jet fighter at the same time, so the technological edge Germany had wasnt that huge as some people make out.
The Allies had "wonder weapons" of their own, like radar and fleet carriers. The fact that they WEREN'T a colossal waste of money only makes them MORE wonderful.
@@CountArtha The value of the KM was always more as a "fleet in being", requiring the Allies (esp the UK) to devote disproportionate resources to defend against them. Even with all the IRL disadvantages the KM had, they caused real problems in the Atlantic. Whilst genuinely starving the UK out was never really very realistic, they certainly did deny us easy access to resources from the Empire that we needed, making rearmament much more difficult than it could have been
@Grundy Malone You clearly need to study amphibious assaults in the European and Pacific theaters more. Germany didn't have anywhere close to enough transports and types of transports. The US didn't develop the big numbers and different types needed until later. You absolutely need naval and air superiority to protect vulnerable troop and supply transports. All the tanks and other vehicles in the world won't make a difference unless you can land them safely on another shore and supply them with gas to move, ammo to shoot, and food to feed the troops. The Allies built and transported Mulberry harbors to support D-Day. Logistics are are much more important than armchair generals realize. Just a cursory look at the massive amphibious forces of major Allied assaults will tell you tell you what the German High Command and Hitler knew - they had no hopes of invading the UK.
@Grundy Malone bet you love your little basement with the swastika flag on the wall and your nazi hentei porn bet you wear a german helmet when you play hoi4
He should have actually tried to hit on Stefanie Rabatsch in person, not just write an anonymous letter. Maybe impress her with a painting, then invite her to the opera.
But you know what they say: All publicity is good publicity. Hitler sure made a name for himself for the history books. Might even surpass Caesar himself...
The whole concept of the Wehrmachts operation between 1939 and 1941 was based on one thing: The knowledge that time would work for the enemy. The High Command knew that, if one would run into a prolonged campaign against the Allies, the outcome would be the same as in 1914- 1918. In fact, that is the war the Oberkommando originally planned for against France: A war of attrition. The French planned likewise. It was only after the defeat of France that the Generals thougth everything else should be not only possible, but a piece of cake
ViceadmiralNelson Besides we have to acknowledge that since in the previous war Russia was defeated but France resisted until the bitter end and then counter-attacked, everyone thought that ir France was already defeated in one month, the soviets wont last long either...
He couldn't invade the UK due to several factors. 1, lack of air dominance 2, lack of landing craft 3, lack of naval supremacy 4, lack of oil reserves The 4th reason was the main factor in the decision to go into Russia due to their oil fields. Control of that would of been a massive asset to the German military
@@iceice1295 but why should the USSR attacked? The purge is still in full swing and all divisions are shifting to new equipment. E.g from T26 to T34 airforce moving from L15/L16 to Yak-9s etc. The equipment will be fully ready by 42 and training will be complete probably by 43. For all the sins Stalin done. He definitely didnt want to attack Germany, he trusted Hitler so much he broke in the first days of Barbarossa
You are a superb historian and presenter of the complexities of modern warfare. I always feel rewarded with new understanding, after watching one of your programs. Many thanks!
Actually there were hidden oil fields in German territory and countries around it. In Austria they had the Matzen oil field which reached 22 million oil barrels in just six years under a damaged Soviet economy. Next there were more undiscovered in NW Germany(Ruehle, Brandenburg, Emlicheim, Bramberge and Georgsdorf) and in Schoonebeek Holland. All within a 25 mile radius of Schoonebeek. Discovering Schoonebeek would have diacovered the other oil fields as well. The combined output of those oil field was also 22 million (9 million from Schoonebeek and 13 million from the other German oil fields just close to Schoonebeek.) All these oil fields all were discovered in the late 40s/early 50s by accident and used 1930s tech to drill it out. All the oil fields mentioned were all under a mile deep. Now the discovery of these oil fields would have dramatically have fueled a much larger portion of the Wehrmacht, ensuring their early victories and possibly give them more oil to traverse deeper in the Soviet Uniom, allowing greater capture of soldiers, factories and other military equipment. The big change will be the fuel will not synthetic based, which was expensive and horribly inefficient. A good reason for why Germany didnt discover these oil fields in the early/mid 1930s are 1.) No luck. Had more serious explorations occur they might have found it and 2.) Short sighted thinking. No one knew oil fields were there. It appeared better at the time to invest in synthetic fuel plants and not find other fields. Hitler believed time and energy was better spent into building synthetic fuel plants. So a point of divergence to occur where Germany has much more oil is not impossible. Somewhat plausible, but will require hard work. So, in essence Germany could have found more oil. I promise to deliver the sources later for the oil fields in terms of depth and production along with the tech available to showcase how they had the ability to exploit it. Just some bad luck and short sightedness stopped them.
@@molcur9658 well he is right. This is a Dutch article, but it tells a part of his story. www.geheugenvandrenthe.nl/bataafsche-petroleum-maatschappij-bpm-n-v
...in theory if they were robots instead of humans, yes they could. This is exactly what Patton thought should be done and look what happened to him, though. Also England's economy was exhausted by 1945, as was their manpower supplies, Russia and most of Europe too, was wrecked from end to end, there had been around 100 million dead, and everybody just wanted it to end. It would have been cruel in the extreme to everyone left alive, to simply form up the western armies and have them march east, atom bomb or no atom bomb.
@@robertmaybeth3434 The Red Army probably would have won or at least forced a peace. Heck, the only reason Stalin didn't invade Europe in 1948 was because of The Bomb.
@Jack Dorsen I didn't know that! That makes his "car accident" appear in a whole different light, to me. Truman didn't need Patton anymore by then, is there anybody more expendable than a General officer after a war's been won? Especially one who's actively trying to start another war on his own authority?
Well researched and very well-reasoned. The only comment that I would make is that neither the U.S. nor the U.K. seemed to recognize the extent of the threat of Nazi Germany and Japan prior to the outset of the war. Both British Parliament and the U.S. Congress were divided in their perception of the risks posed by Germany and the need for extensive military expenditures. Economics notwithstanding, there would have likely been a considerable delay in any significant Allied response to Germany's continued military build-up (particularly from the U.S.) As you've pointed out: Germany faced its own internal economic limitations. Great channel. Really enjoy the vids. Keep them coming!
The question I would ask is could the Nazis have waited for the Soviet Union to attack Poland or even the Baltic states on their own? Would France and Britain support Germany in an anti-communist war or just watch as the totalitarian states destroyed each other? As always another great video!
Hitler agreed with Stalin that they both will attack on the 1st of September. Then GB wouldnt start a war with both dictatorships. A war that GB could not win. Stalin "was not ready" till 17 of September but he knew how ready the Red army was when Soviets proposed that plan. And Hitler got fooled into a 2 front war. The thing that Germany always feared.
Paciat My premise is the only way Germany was going to get the 'living room ' they desired was at the expense of the Soviets. The only way this could happen is if either the Western European countries allied with them or stood aside.
It would probably not be possible but it would have been a great idea if the soviets actually attacked. Mostly cuz without a war aganist the Allies they would have no blockade and meh relations with the world so Germany would had oil, food and maybe they would even avoid bankruptcy, last one is a little far-fetched tho.
I just found your channel recently and am loving your content, it's very well thought out and researched, but I do have one question in regards to this, in the buildup to WW2 Germany put forth a very hostile and belligerent face toward France, Britain and much of the rest of Europe, which when combined with their rearmament saw their enemies building up their forces as well. But what if Hitler has been smart enough to put forth a less confrontational appearance and didn't push a massive rearmament program, and instead for a few years put in place much slower, and less threatening build up of their forces, at the same time putting more energy into it's military research and development? This would likely have eased tension in the allied powers, and not resulted in their committing to the buildups that they did, such that the forces that had at that time where all equipped with the best equipment possible, so when they started the massive buildup to war, they would have been in a much better starting position, and thus been faster off the mark then the allies. Note this would be taking place Japan's expansion would be continuing in the Pacific and thus the allies would likely have committed more of their forces to holding back the Japanese advance, since at that time Germany would be appearing to be less of a threat, at least until Germany surged it's preparations for war. I know there are a lot of assumptions here, but I don't think any of them are unreasonable, and since Germany would have started it's main buildup after it had already modernized most of it's existing military structure the build up would be much easier as it would just need to add to it's forces instead of trying to add to it's forces at the same time that it was modernizing it's current force. This would not solve their fuel issue, at least not directly, but it might have allowed them to gain more resources, much faster, thus resolving many of their supply issues in the early years of the war.
If Germany waited, the Soviets would have completed its own rearmament, and in Hitler's own conclusions that the Soviets would, once reforms were completed annex Romania. If Romania was annex it's game over for Germany before a war even starts.
Gendermans, we are all businessman! Well if Germany stayed the Weimar Republic or wasn't Nazi Germany, they most likely would have been fine. The reason I say this is because Mein Kampf had been out for years and Hitler's plans to invade Russia had been out for all the world to see. This understandably made the Soviets deeply insecure.
James Tang Yep, both sides were fueling their own paranoias to the point where both became partially justified. It was like trying their best to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's what every arms race does - but not every arms race has some crazy ideologies attached. Cold War one at least had "MAD" dangling over everyone. But given how enthusiastic Adolf was about a world where strong eat weak, MAD wouldn't have helped to sober everyone up - and communists would've declared that "12-year plan makes MAD void because Marx and Lenin predicted it" or something. Sounds like something a regime that was stupid enough to confiscate seed grain would do.
James Tang Perhaps you should look up how Stalin reacted when he was informed with the commencement of Operation Barbarossa. The Soviets were deeply insecure by Hitler's plan? That can't be further from the truth, I'm afraid. Stalin was a political realist, so he conjectured that Hitler as a dictator like him must be as politically realistic as he was, and "Mein Kampf" was rather a piece of propaganda than a blueprint of actions.
UK, France, and Poland were getting ready for war in 1941 or 1942. For UK and France they were predictions, and for Poland it was necessity. Poland was too poor to stay always ready. And, yes, the Poles knew that even if they were as ready as possible and even if they guessed when the war was going to start correctly, they still could not win on their own. Moreover, the plan to be as-ready-as-possible by late 1941 was facing delays (money). For example: Poles wanted to convert all the cavalry brigades into motorized-mechanized brigades. Since some cavalry brigades resisted transformation, it is likely that Poland would have ended up with 12 to 14 motorized-mechanized brigades and 12 to 14 cavalry brigades (to be fair, the Polish cavalry did appreciate organic armored companies of tankettes and armored cars as well as AT cannons and AT rifles). The bottom line is that the Poles were creating only 1 such motorized-mechanized brigade per year (1938, 1939, 1940, and 1941 is 4 years, so 4 brigades and not 12 to 14).
Poland could've won against the USSR, and they could've given the Germans a bloody enough nose to dissuade them from further campaigns, but facing bot together was basically impossible
Though you got your point across, when I saw this video the first thing I thought of was the Soviet Union. I felt the Germans attacked at the right time cuz if they waited any longer the soviets would just get more and more powerful, until they were at the point they were at at 1944.
@Jan Krynicky Why? He already purged every single officer and party official to the point where all that was left was people that only said yes to Stalin. having only 3 years go by until the next purge of half the armed forces wouldn't make any sense, as all of the traitors were killed in the first purge(as wel as many other innocents) and in 4-5 years time people would still remember the first purge very well, so why the fuck would Stalin do 2 seperate purges within 5 years? It makes no sense, it's not like Stalin purged his army after ww2 either, so why would he do it twice anyways? On top of that, the more hitler waited the more powerful the US would've became as well.
@Jan Krynicky Your right, it doesn't make sense for him to purge his army twice in 5 years. If that was the case, that he could be easily convinced to purge his army, why didn't he do it after world war 2? Or the many years following that? If he really was that trigger happy with purging, we would've seen another purge of the size of the first one some where in history. But we don't. Besides, Trosky was dead so there's even less of a reason to purge.
The longer Germany waited the stronger the Soviets would get yes, but they wouldn't get as strong as in the actual war for a variety of reasons, the most important being that they weren't in a major war, so they just wouldn't have such an emphasis on rushing out arms as quick as possible or conscripting as many soldiers, another reason is that America supplied pretty much all Soviet trucks, a large amount of ammunition and a lot of planes came from Britain and the USA, also a massive amount of metal came from the USA, obviously they wouldn't have all this so that means they would have to divide far more resources to their own aircraft, ammunition and especially trucks Also Stalin had massive plans for building up a navy so some resources would go there too, so overall they obviously won't be as strong in 1944 as they were in reality, it just simply isn't feasible
One thing to also be noted. Is what happened to the Russians in the early part of the German invasion. They had plenty of troops and vehicles, most were obsolete. However the T-34 which was a match for the Panzers where just beginning to see service. If Russia had enough T-34's and had them deployed the early days of the war, it could have gone much different. Many of the German super weapons were a response to the Allies countering existing German arms. So you might not of known you needed to build Me 262 over Me 109's. World war 2 was only 6 years long, a relatively short period for arms development, for example the development of the F-35 started in 1992.
brgessner That is a complete misunderstanding. Russia had lots of T-34 in 1941 when the invasion happened. Over 1000 to be exact. Almost as much as panzer 3 and 4s combined. And unlike some anecdotal stories the t-34 most of the time did not propose a big threat to the Germans even if it had better armor and main gun compared to German tanks.
USSR had enough equipment to take on Germany, the problem was that the military was shit in terms of experience from the purge and Stalin didn't think Hitler would attack as soon as he did. The biggest reason for German success in the start was the surprise attack followed by USSR being out of position for a defensive war followed by excellent German strategic moves.
Man, you teach me so much about logistics and operations! I really view military history through a different light thanks to you and Hearts of Iron (not that it’s a perfect representation but it gives a good idea of certain military concepts) I was wondering, if you have the time, what you would’ve done as the French High Command previous to WWII given what we know now? And when would you have liked to begin your reforms (like you said in this vid, a build up requires both time as well as money money)?
Someone said that, "500 years from now, future historians will call the period 1935-1945 The War for Oil". It was the conversion from coal to oil power in shipping that made evident to England-Germany-Japan-Italy that OIL was going to be a bottleneck resource, a deal-breaker. The USSR and USA had plenty of reserves and other problems to distract them from this issue for a few years, while England increased her oil reserves and Germany began synthetic research. Ultimately, the search for oil sources led to Germany increasing her military, increasing her need for oil, rinse-and-repeat until the problem reaches crisis level. War was unavoidable after Versailles, give or take a couple years. Only a rational English treaty with Germany would prevent WWII, but this was impossible after strangling the Wiemar Republic in the 1920s.
Very informative video MHV! I recall reading a quip somewhere (possibly in Alan Bullock) that Nazi Germany started its war both too early and too late - too early in the sense that its military forces had not sufficiently developed their capabilities to achieve its aims and too late in that its major adversaries had sufficiently mobilized or developed their military forces to resist or intervene against it. (I also recall reading that Hitler subsequently felt 'cheated' of victory because Germany would have been better off starting war over Czechoslovakia rather than the Allies postponing it to Poland). My own view is that Nazi Germany had a very narrow window of opportunity in starting war at all with any apparent prospect of success, effectively between its own rearmament and those of its adversaries, in which more time only favored the latter - although a more rational view of that narrow window of opportunity would have been to avoid going to war at all. If anything, it might be argued that Nazi Germany started war against Britain and France at the best possible time (and similarly attacked the Soviet Union at the optimal time of German advantage and Soviet disadvantage) - and that was as good an opportunity as it was ever going to get (both in 1939 against Britain and France - and in 1941 against the Soviet Union and arguably even in its declaration of war against the United States). I note Tooze seems to have a similar view, in that although Hitler probably would have preferred to bluff Britain and France out of their guarantee to Poland, he was certainly willing to risk war with them because German prospects would only worsen from that time. (Germany was arguably doubly lucky in its narrow window of opportunity - in that its offensive success coincided with a tactical balance in which mobile offensive firepower had gained the advantage over defence, and its defensive success coincided with the balance swinging back to defensive firepower from 1942-1943). A more interesting question might be whether the Allies - Britain and France - should have waited. That is, whether they could or should have effectively bought time or postponed war, by not giving (or acting upon) their guarantee to Poland in the manner that they did.
This is fair, but I would seriously have questioned their sanity to wait just that long; too soon, and they run the risk of not fielding enough forces to really dent the French line, too late and the french bridge some of the technical gap. My only problem here is, I do not know what french designers were planning for Tank design for the foreseeable future. Tanks were still often discussed as relic weapons or as support, rather than an independent mechanized fist. I believe a French general had recognized the utility some point near/during the war and had moved to push for further development. Too little, too late. Infantry was still king, although this isn’t to say French design was terribly far behind, as the Char B1-Bis was well armored enough to stop anything a Panzer could put out, up to the Panzer III.
David Thorp the tanks design wasn’t as much a problem as deployment, the concentrated panzer divisions quickly over whelmed the French tanks which were scattered with the infantry
@@davidthorp01 Generally most french tanks could easily beat any Panzers at the time in a 1v1, but german tactics made sure that almost never happened.
M.H.V. Haven't watched a video of your's in awhile (bad on me)! I forgot how much work you put into your videos - it clearly shows. I cancelled one of my accounts that I had used to subscribe to WW1/WW2 based channels "accidentally though - I'm an idiot on purpose". I'm almost a year late to this video but still say "Well Done".
Not only this. You simply cannot develop high advanced tanks for example until you see what enemy has. Putting high caliber guns on Pancers and Tigers was result of seeing T-34 amour in battle. Without this knowledge, Wermacht would just continue to produce more Pancer 3 with some minor upgrades, but for sure they would not consider 88mm guns. Same with antitank guns. Basically you dont know what you need until you try it in a war.
yeah but the enemy would also lack the expirience to research their better units, there wouldn't be IS 2 and KV's for the soviets nor any of the late war weapons ANY of the allies had. so the playing field there is even.
Wheels vs tracks and usually mechanized eludes to the ability of the units to fight without leaving their AFVs while motorized could mean just moving troops around on trucks and other motor vehicles
I'd say that the issue wasn't going to war too early. I think the bigger mistake was Hitler trying to bite off more than he could chew. If he started out with Poland and then consolidated his position there for a few years, he would probably have been more successful. Britain and France might've rattled their sabers but I doubt they would have made any serious commitment in trying to liberate Poland from German occupation. The success in Poland just seems to have made the Nazis overconfident.
mPky1: All lands conquered needs to be occupied for quite a long time afterwards. There's no real way around it, since you turn the population of a conquered land your enemy as soon as you declare and wage war on them in the first place. It's not like you can conquer a nation by not killing anyone or destroying someones property, so it's next to impossible to do it while maintaining popular support among the population of the enemy country. So there's always a period of "cracking heads and restoring order" after the enemy government and armed forces have been forced to surrender. Which is why I point out the problem with Hitler being overly ambitious and not respecting the necessary timeframe needed to pacify a newly conquered population. He believed that since they achieved a swift military victory in Poland, he should just keep going, dedicating most resources and manpower towards invading the next country on his hitlist. Not only did it leave newly conquered territories vulnerable to local insurgency, but the speed of his conquests also instilled a greater sense of alarm and urgency in other foreign enemies like France, Britain and Russia. The trick is to slowly conquering your neighbours while projecting a complete lack of ambition towards conquest to the people watching you. Basically: drop the frog in boiling water and it will jump out immediately. But drop the frog in cold water and then slowly increase the heat, and the frog will allow itself to be boiled alive without any intervention. Classic deception, all according to the principles of Sun Tzu.
"All lands conquered needs to be occupied for quite a long time afterwards. There's no real way around it, since you turn the population of a conquered land your enemy as soon as you declare and wage war on them in the first place." France being liberated in 44 begs to differ. This sort of welcome could have been possible for Germany in the war against the Soviet union also if the had been less you know , nazi. It was not lost on many of the local population of Ukraine and the Baltic states that Germany and her allies had ensured their independence from Russia after WW1, however shortlived that independence was for Ukraine. If they had acted less like racial purists, and more pragmatic, atleast during the early days of the invasion, they could have formed dozens of divisions from these countries. The people there had more than enough reason and will to fight back against the Soviet union. More than any other blunder that was the biggest one throughout the war by germany, to alienate and abuse these people immediately. I do not imagine that the nazis could have ever not murdered all those people in the end, it was after all the largest impetus for this war in the east, to clear the lands and move in german settlers. But if they had taken a more pragmatic approach in the early days they could have harvested alot of goodwill and resources from these people until the red army was mostly beaten at which point they could turn on them, or if someone less insane stuck a dull blade through old Adolfs brain in the meantime, and decided to continue the good relations.
Perhaps a better question might have been, would it have made a difference if Germany had immediately put its industry on a war footing at the outbreak of war in 1939?
This is an extremely sensible analysis. There is, however, one aspect you don't touch on - and which is something I hope you will make the subject of a future video. Why was German arms production so appalling DURING the war - or at least during the first half of it? In 1940, Germany built fewer than 2,000 tanks. In 1944, they built almost 20,000. Why the discrepancy? I can think of no valid economic reason why Germany shouldn't have been capable of reaching 1944 levels in 1940. Indeed, since the strategic bombing campaign had had little effect, Germany ought - in theory at least - have been able to build more than 20,000 tanks in 1940. This is a question that has long puzzled me. The nearest thing to a plausible answer I've seen was that the Germans managed to convince themselves that they would be fighting a short, victorious war, and that expending too much effort on war production would be wasteful. I would very much like to hear your opinion on this.
look at my Army Expansion 1933-1939 video, the industry and resource situation was fucked up. They always changed plans, etc. see also my Common Misconceptions, where I state that the German military was against manufacturing belts, because they wanted to be able to change the production fast. Then there was competition all around etc. probably way more points, but I have to finish Tooze's Wages of destruction first. Also Germany lacked standardization etc. LOADS of types and subtypes, e.g., one of late Panzer IV models was basically just the same as the previous, but with some improvements for mass production... yeah a late Panzer IV variant, so you can guess that it was a bit late for that.
Because Htiler 1. made his career on consumer goods availability, like armament, founded by MEFO fraud 2. Even after Barbarossa began, Htiler persistently refused shifting economy on war track and onto full gear. 1939 - 1941 development of armour almost stopped and had it been not for Czech factories, shortages would have been greater.
For one thing, they were far slower to allow women into the workforce. The USSR, due to giving everyone the same rights (absolutely none), put women on equal footing, for the most part, giving almost double the pool of workers and soldiers to choose from, allowing high production despite the time it took for quality control to improve. in the US, there was still a refusal to allow women in the military for the most part (and there still is), but we were far quicker than Germany to allow women to take factory jobs, and we even got over some of our racial discrimination policies out of necessity. In short, it was the same thing that cause the mess to begin with: arrogance and supremicism.
6 ปีที่แล้ว
Forced labour had to do a lot with it I imagine. 5,7 million conscripts made to fight for the Russians surrendered. Many volunteered for the nazis, for example as occupational troops (Osttruppen) either because they hated their Russian occupier or because it improved their own conditions. Many were simply forced to work as slaves. In addition, there was a call for forced labour in occupied countries like the Netherlands. Then later there were hunts for men of working age. Eventually the penalty for labour dodging was execution. So basically you must've had millions of (unenthousiastic) workers flooding into the nazi war industry over the years. That has to have increased production. It would be really hard for extra conscription during the war to account for millions of workers leaving the war industry.
His single biggest mistake was not helping Italy in 1940. If they'd taken Malta in August 1940 instead of trying to pressure England to a ceasefire and rolled up Egypt with Italy it would have been game over. Control of Malta, the Suez canal and Alexandria in addition with the air cover available, would have driven the British out of the Med. Do that in 1940, and the occupation of the Balkans/Greece etc would not have been necessary, Syria was still Vichy, and all the oil of Libya and Iraq/Saudi etc, plus Iran would have not been invaded. Cuts two ways as well, the resource drain of being stuck fighting in the Med took the sting out of Barbarossa.
7:40 TIK did an entire video explaining that it would be impossible for the germans to create more motorized divisions due to oil supplies. he goes much further in depth on the oil topic if anyone wants to see it here is the link th-cam.com/video/kVo5I0xNRhg/w-d-xo.html
Problem is, he only goes into the oil. There were a lot more reasons why it just wasn't possible. MHV names quite some of them (Germany being almost bankrupt for example), but there is other stuff like German companies not being experienced in assembly line production, the steel needed for such a motorization just not being there (or affordable) and on top of that...there just weren't enough drivers. Cars were still something for the higher class in Germany in the 1930s, they would have had to put hundreds of thousands of soldiers through a drivers training...and what a rushed drivers training could do to the capabilities of a mechanized force was shown in 1941 by the Red Army.
These just underscore some of the advantages the United States had. They had the resources, the production experience(after all Ford first created and used assembly line production in the auto industry) and cars were relatively common in the United States as well.
Ich hab mein Meister in Europäische Geschichte gemacht (mittelalterliche) und ich gucke gerne historische TH-cam Videos an, ihre Kanal ist mir am liebsten
@Karl Quetzacoatl Debatable, but perhaps. I do think think that African front was totally that though. Seems like that was around a 15 million ton expedition if I recall correctly, not to mention Romania. Just think, if someone would've bought his art, maybe it wouldn't have ever happened.
@Karl Quetzacoatl Even IF the Germans solely focussed on the Western and Southern Front for some reason, the Soviets wouldve been the one to take a first Strike against Germany. A war between the two was inevitable.
Hitler's biggest and crucial mistake was to fight on two fronts and to underestimate the Russians. Great channel and vids. I like your accent =) Keep up the great work.
Excellent. When I wade in to my research of WW2 the 'pre war' history is the only thing that interests me now. I'll have to read "Wages of Destruction" again. The parallel of the 30's to today is remarkable..
Luftwaffe with all Jet Fighters and Fast Attack Stealth Bombers Heer with all Assault Rifles and Panzerfaust and Better Skilled SS. Kriegsmarine with more Submarine, Destroyers.
I tell these armchair generals that there was no way the Germany could have conquered the world in WW II! Germany just did not have the manpower or the resources to do so. At best Germany could of conquered a empire from the Atlantic to the Urals. And that's it!
As was said, Germany didn't want to conquer the world, not even western europe. Hitler was always planning expansion to the east. France and Britain suppporting Poland made the war in the west a necessity.
I disagree with your conclusions over allied response readiness if Germany would have had a fleet of 300 U-Boats at the start of WW2. Just look what Germany did with those 40 U-boats and the Royal navy could not properly escort and protect merchant ships in the Atlantic until mid to late 1942. What would of happen if Germany had 120 U-boats at start of WW2, probably the Royal Navy would have been larger but would it had made that much of a difference against 3 times as many U-boats. Thankfully we will never know, my hat off to the brave men of the Royal Navy and Merchant Marine. Not that the U-boat men were not brave but hey they were the enemy. Actually the enemy were/are the leaders that sent/send men off to fight needless wars.
You missed the point, having a sizable U-boat fleet would've made the Allies more aware of the threat of u boats before the war. And the Allies would be far better prepared to deal with them once the war started.
A plan that assumes a passive enemy isn't a plan, its daydream I would just caution you that the consequences of your proposal wouldn't have gone unnoticed and thus the RN at the beginning of WW2 could have looked a lot different also. The 300 boat theory is often thrown up for discussion , but from that you would have to lose around 10-20% as training boats, with the remainder split equally between going out on patrol, coming back from patrol and R&R. Thus you may only have 80 boats actually on station, and not the mystical 300! However 80 boats would have caused more damage than in reality but the losses in U-Boat may well have been proportionally higher. Doenitz at the time when proposing 300 u boats didn't realized that airpower is going to be significant in dealing with u boats
@tsunderella LOL no, it was better to launch a war that killed tens of millions, lose it, and have Germany divided, right? go back to your basement with Nazi memorabilia
@Warafare48 There was no way that Patton's plan would be successful. Americans, British and French in 1945 were completely indoctrinated to believe that soviet Union were their friends. They fought side by side during many conquests. If the allies immediately attacked Stalin after the yalta conference without any provocative action by the erstwhile soviet Union. Let me tell you the scenario won't be pretty. For the citizens, who had just came out of the most bloody war in history. These would be the worst case of betrayal. Mutinies would have taken place in the allied armed forces. Soldiers would have refused to fight their Russian comrades. Communism was at rise all over the world which would eventually lead to communists parties being popular and their banning would invite further resistance. The Soviets would not have just accepted defeat too. For them this would be the worst betrayal by the people they considered allies. They would fight till death to protect their homeland. And this is the best case scenario. If US resorted to using nuclear bombs it would immediately lead to a complete collapse of the USA and could eventually lead to world communism as predicted by many.
@@aviatorraj7820 I brought this up back in the 60's with a friend's father who had been an infantry sergeant in in Europe in WWII and later became an administrator and taught graduate classes in the school of social work at a major research university. He said this: "If some lieutenant had told us to start fighting the Russians we would have shot him." You also allude to the issue of the American home front. The home front would have rebelled against the move as well. The American home front was factor in the calculations of both allies and foes. The strategy of the Japanese at that time was to keep the war going long enough that the American home front rebelled against the policy of unconditional surrender and demanded that with Japan no longer a threat to us or are allies the government negotiated an end to the war in the Pacific. The atomic bomb abd entry of the Soviet Union into the war was the one-two that forced the Japanese unconditional surrender. They did it quickly in order to avoid occupation of a major part of the their country by the Soviet Union. Back to the original issue. The idea was just unthinkable.
@@mrvk39 Yeah, Germany should have done what the Russians, Americans, French and British did and consulted an ethics committee before legally murdering several hundred million people and occupying their land. Either that or Germany should have taken it up the ass and meekly allowed itself to be exploited just like the countless other colonies of the allied empires. Goddamnit Germany, why do you have to launch wars of aggression while we're trying to conquer half the world! It's so inconvenient when our helpless victims actually fight back.
My understanding is that the Germans were using synthetic oils and fuel made from coal (Fischer Tropsich process). They had 27 such plants operating. I thought there was no major shortages until Barbarossa and it's accompanying overreach.
2:27 - "As such, one might argue that if Germany had just built more subs, they could have beaten the Royal Navy." No, German strategists recognized that outright defeat of the Royal Navy was out of reach. Rather, the main use for U-boats was commerce raiding. Given the enormous success the U-boats enjoyed initially against the British merchant ships, and then again in early 1942 against the even less prepared Americans, it's reasonable to ask whether a few more U-boats during the critical early months of the war could have starved the British into armistice or even surrender. Since neither the British nor the Americans were adequately prepared for the relatively few U-boats they faced initially, we may wonder whether the Germans could have built more U-boats before the onset of hostilities while maintaining a similar proportional advantage of preparedness, as it were. That is, suppose the Germans would have doubled their U-boat construction pre-war, and the British and Americans would have countered by doubling their counter-submarine preparedness. With all else being equal, that might have roughly doubled the early Allied merchant shipping losses, possibly starving Britain of the food, fuel, and other imported material that enabled it keep fighting. No amount of heroism during the Battle of Britain changed the fact that most of the fuel, food, metals, and so on that kept the Royal Air Force flying and shooting had to travel across the Atlantic in slow vulnerable merchant ships.
If i remember rightly, Stalin was also planing an offensiv against Germany in the same time period. Thats why there where so many troops getting captured in the beginning of WWII.
One point I think was missed (thou may have been outside the scope of this video) was the massive Russian armourment at the time. After the Winter War especially, the major deficiencies highlighted by the Finnish were rapidly being addressed. Considering the lopsided casualty figures between the Eastern and Western front, I believe that aspect was of far greater importance than that of the Western allies. My question for you would then be would you think that delaying Barbarossa would have been benifical to the wars outcome, or was the actual date the best of all possible disasters?
Short of pouring everything into aircraft carriers (which is still a big if given that they were unproven tech at the time) I doubt Germany could have ever built up the Kriegsmarine enough to seriously challenge the Royal Navy. Prior to World War 1 Germany spent 20 years putting everything it possibly could into building a world class navy, yet it was nowhere near enough and ended up accomplishing very little besides alienating the largest empire in the world. In the 30's Germany was starting over completely in virtually aspect of their armed forces and realistically would have been better off just focusing on air and land power instead of pointless white sea elephants.
@0utc4st1985: The ratio of raw materials and productive capacity was 6 (Luftwaffe) : 3 (Army) : 1 (Navy). So they did concentrate on Air- and Landpower.
Yeah GB hade the good fortune to be able to focus on its navy as a first line of defence. You can have the strongest army or the strongest navy but not both unless you are a continent like the US or China that is...
@Zerko - Each of the two Bismarck class battleships that Germany built weighed in at about 42,000 tons each. Each Panther weighed 44 tons, so for the material price of two battleships that did nothing they could have had more than 1,900 Panthers that could have made much more of a difference. Of course there's other battleships they built too like the Scharnhorst, which also did nothing. I haven't looked at fuel requirements but I think it's a safe bet the fuel used would have probably been fairly similar to that number of Panthers too.
@0utc4st1985: You missed obe thing: Timeline! Q: When were these ships built? A: Bismarck was laid down at the Blohm & Voss shipyard on 1 July 1936; Tirpitz's keel was laid at the Kriegsmarine dockyard in Wilhelmshaven on 20 October 1936. Q: When was the first Panther built? A: December 1942. Q: How many Panthers could Germany produce in 1936? A: 0
0utc4st1985 no. They would have all gotten sunk. Carriers utility is striking land further from ground based air strips. They could reach England from France. So your first sentence I find foolish. However beyond that I agree
I love your videos. I am wide open to supporting on Patreon. However, the “every reichsmark counts” thing raised an eyebrow. I’m afraid I only have East German Marks. Are those accepted?
One issue that nobody here mentions is that if the war hadn't started until 1948 or so the British colonial empire would have already begun to unravel. Germany would have been much better served if it then had supported various independence movements, much as the USSR later did during the Cold Car. Also, Japan would have benefited if it could have imported strategic resources from newly independent countries rather than be dependent on the USA.
This makes no sense. The reason that the colonies wanted independence was because of the 2nd world war. This was because of the allies' constant propaganda of "the free world" and "free Europe" and the colonies got angry because of the hipocrisy. Not only that but the colonial empires like Britain were exhausted by the war, and had no intention to fight another. So if there was any time to ask for independence, it was during that time. And you gotta remember, that Australia, New Zealand and Canada to this day still work close together with the UK when it comes to foreign conflicts. So to say that the UK wouldn't have had any support from them if they were independent, is such a baseless claim.
@@codwawgamerzz You fail to consider that India was the most important British colony and it was the cornerstone of the empire. By the late 1930s the independence movement in India had become so strong that even many British colonial officials considered it only a matter of time before the country became independent. Moreover, Gandhi's nonviolent protest movement had also greatly resonated in the UK itself, where more and more people were willing to support Indian independence. World War II may have actually delayed Indian independence rather than accelerating it (which was probably the case in Africa). After losing India, the British Empire would have been greatly weakened, although this wouldn't have affected the UK's relations with Australia, Canada, South Africa, or New Zealand. I never made any such claim, either. Another country that needs to be considered in this respect is the Philippines. The Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934 paved the way for Philippine independence following a ten-year transition period. As a result, the Philippines was granted commonwealth status in 1935 and would have become fully independent in 1944. World War II delayed this until 1946. After Philippine independence, anti-colonial pressure would have greatly increased throughout Asia. It's therefore hard to say whether the Dutch and French could have held onto their colonies in Southeast Asia for much longer than they actually did. What I mainly want to point out is that too many people seem to assume that the Western colonial empires could have somehow made it through the 1940s without adverse effect if World War 2 hadn't happened. This is a complete fallacy. In relative terms, the UK and France would have become increasingly weaker compared to Germany. Besides the USSR, the main long-term opponent that Hitler faced was certainly not Britain, but the United States. Despite all of Germany's rearmament efforts, the country had no chance of contending with America in the long-run. As the Naval Act of 1938 showed, the U.S. Navy would have swept the Kriegsmarine from the seas even if Plan Z could have been realized.
@@davemorgan6013 I agree with Lord Spast, you cannot assume that the colonial powers would have allowed their empire to unravel had the World War not happened. England would have had much more resources, public support, and military power to stop any such actions. While you are right, WW2 or not there would have been continued calls for independence across the British empire, that does not mean they would have been succesful. WW2 had a profound effect on the world - it is impossible to say what it would look like had it not happened.
@@so8907 The war definitely had a profound effect, but I have to disagree with you on major points. In fact, the war briefly strengthened British resolve to hang onto India because they could not let go of such a valuable asset in wartime. Moreover, it is unlikely that Churchill, who was a vociferous opponent of Indian independence, would have become prime minister without the disaster in France. Under Chamberlain, let alone under a Labour government, the UK would not have been willing to keep India at all costs. An armed uprising would have become increasingly likely in India by 1943 if the peaceful independence efforts had not borne any fruit. I do not believe that British voters would have condoned the use of massive military force to crush such a rebellion, which would have been far more severe (and costly) than the Mau Mau Uprising of the 1950s, for example.
What if Hitler had kept to the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement and, instead of opening up a second front, he focused his forces on Britain and North Africa. Could he have achieved victory there, thereby securing oil in the Middle-East?
My favorite part part of this channel is, we all get to hear a German breakdown how feeble Hitler’s plans of European domination were. If such a technical, not ideological (emotional), mind had been in play how many more people would be alive today!
Yes, his army and forces were legit still in their beta's. They tried their tactics in Poland and Spain and worked. That got to their heads and went all out against the world.
How would they do that then? Do you have a plan that could actually work? When making said plan, please take into consideration that the enemy will counter it
Hitler lost the war on the Eastern Front (and by some reason the Soviet Union wasn't even mentioned). Why there's such a sophisticated analysis about what the allies had? It had little impact on the war.
Should have focused on industrial capacity, infrastructure, and full employment in useful tasks. This would be civilian activity that could form the foundation for a rapid military build up and would improve the economic situation. Many civilian projects could have a dual use in mind. More shipbuilding capacity can be used for trade and passenger ships in the short term while creating the possibility for a shift to build more military ships at some point. More high quality road and rail networks can be used for industry as well as enabling more rapid troop movements and logistical support. More airfields might be a bit too obvious given the severe restrictions on aircraft imposed on them but improvements could be made to existing airfields. Hardening of some civilian industry and installation of minor fortifications in and around cities well back from the borders probably could be done without provoking a severe response. This could begin to provide some protection against bombers and invasion.
Another thing! Germany : (Huff.. Huff..) "Having enemies on both sides sure is hard. We made a big mis-" Japan : "Let's launch multiple operations on the American Pacific regions! See if they're gonna surrender. Naval superiority goes brrrr"
I wonder what would have happened if the soviet union attacked first, effectively making themselves the aggressor. Afterall Germany's plan was to defeat France first to concentrate on fighting Russia afterwards.
I don't think it would have mattered at that point. Germany had been in an offensive war with the allies since 1939 involving Poland, France and the U.K. along with the colonies. What's to stop Stalin from claiming to be a liberator of Poland and France?
![[Barbarossa] The Major Errors and Blunders - Or why Barbarossa Failed](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A_3R-Rkn_98/mqdefault.jpg)
new merchandise is out, including The German Squad (1941) and various Tiger, Stug & Panzer shirts and posters. Check out everything here: teespring.com/stores/military-history-visualized
StuG Life? On a shirt? Well Im just gonna have to buy one now
Enjoy the channel, are you able to look at Operation Unthinkable? Keeping in mind the US might have had Nukes up their sleeves. Thanks!!
As far as I know, Poland was in middle of reforming its army in 1939 and expected to finish modernization till 1941.
Modernization included:
* introduction of new semi-automatic rifle: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kbsp_wz._1938M
* modification of current stock of Browning wz.28
* retrofit of tanketes TKS en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TKS armed with 20mm nkm ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nkm_wz.38_FK )
* introduction of 9TP tanks ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9TP )
* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10TP
* en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14TP
* completing Central Industrial Region in region between Radom and Kielce, which would boost industrial capacity of Poland.
Some sources state that Germany had not posses replenish losses after invasion of Poland until end of 1939. I heard that some of supply reports stated that after action in Poland, German Army had almost depleted ammunition and if Poles would destroy ammo depots near Puławy and Radom, Germany would not been able to fight after last week of September due to ammo shortage.
Poland wasn't ready in 1939, Germany also, USSR also... that was the point - every country was preparing for war. Poland prepped itself against Soviet Union.
If Hitler would waited till 1941-1942 (estimated that this would cause Wermaht to be at full capacity ready for war) then he would have trouble against Poland or Britain! (well, not so much against France, which lost war due to poor leadership - against popular belief leadership was at fault not courage of soldiers ;) )
Military History Visualized Could you do a video on why the Germans failed to drive back the Allies on D-Day? AKA why the German defensive plans didn't work.
I was partially described in video about Atlantic wall. ;)
"Who wants to eat baguette with sauerkraut?"
Alsace & Lorraine: **Raise hands**
Those folks wish Middle Frankia had hung on longer.
a baguette with a brat - great winning combo.
69 likes lol.
The Saarland?
@@freddyfrago2023 what do you mean?
This guy never fails to do his homework and analysis! Very well developed and presented!!
69 likes lol.
Germans are always on time and always do their homework
Except for the fact that they didn’t add Northern Ireland to the uk sure :/
@@AnEnglishPerson he's in the IRA
@@clementine7985 IRA
Only resourses germany didnt lack off was enemyes
lmfao
Well they did work very hard to earn them, so. .
And coal
And you don't lack in typos either.
Germany ended up getting itself into debt with the MEFO currency
*The German Army isn't ready in 1939*
*Meanwhile, me in HOI4*
*Invades Soviet Union in 1938*
Me: invades france at 1936
@@mertaliataboyraz8933 I think France begins with the largest army. Though not fully trained, and not fully equipped.
But you can Invade USSR with Germany, even in 1937, due to Stalin Purges.
Best strat as germany is to almost immediately start WW2
The only way I can play that and not be offended is just go totaly weird and be Italy or Brazil.
@@paulvonhindenburg4727 You can not play a video game and not be offended? Are you trolling or do you really wear panties that thin?
one of the biggest realizations i have had about ww2 is that a great great many people only see the military and strategic/tactical aspects of the war. "had hitler done this, went with this etc etc" without realizing a crucial but generally overlooked aspect of warfare, the economy. hitler was in a race against time, his economic recovery was at worst a bubble, and at best a stop gap measure, built and propped up on loans etc. second, the biggest factor of him losing the war was a matter of economics, the allies (the US and Soviets in particular) were constantly outproducing them towards the latter stage of the war. the blitzkrieg was a genius strategy, but ultimately an extremely necessary one, they literally had to finish the wars because they literally could not afford prolonging it, hence why a center piece of hitler's grand strategy was for Britain to be knocked out in the war via capitulation or peace treaty
this youtuber has made a video that Blitzkrieg was a myth, and the way that German divisions worked during the 2nd World War was just a continuation of German military doctrine. Try this video th-cam.com/video/LCNw2e-Zehw/w-d-xo.html
Could not afford prolonging it? It took the soviets to get in berlin 5 years while germans had 4 fronts while being bombed still standed on their feet pretty well
Excellent video. Logistics and economics, the most important factors in modern warfare, are usually ignored in favor of a recitation of tank and airplane stats.
Yeah sure but those who obsess only on economics & logistics can also have a fatalistic defeatist and determinist view just as unhelpful
Military and Civilian morale and the cohesiveness of society are important factors in warfare as well.
Remember that professional soldiers rarely discuss tactics. They discuss _logistics._ As my old police force sergeant used to say, _"Be the firstest with the mostest."_
The_Answer Is yes very wise. A good logistical system helps create both speed, stamina and a good breakfast.
Territory is at least as important as logistics and economics. Without open sea lanes/skies and territory in proximity to the enemy you won’t be able to employ any of those resources. For instance the USSR & China were heavily dependent on US supplies sent via the North Sea & Burma/India. If Britain had been knocked out of the war, those sea lanes and land bridges would not have been accessible. There would have been no N.African front and no invasion of Italy. There would have been no D-Day.
1:40 My grandfather was one of those who joined the TA in February 1939. Poor bugger was called up on the 1st of September for ‘duration or war’ and didn’t get demobbed until 1946.
He’d only joined up to earn a few extra quid to marry my nan 😂
Ha, same for my grandfather :) , TA srgt then sent to the jocks for some odd reason(he was from London) was sent home after flies bit him and made him sick during the burning of Bergan-Belsen.
LtKharn grandad was Royal Hampshire’s, North Africa and Italy. (And shagged the daughter of Charles de Gaulle’s chauffeur, apparently!)
Matt Hayward So the war wasn't a total disaster.
Twirlip Of The Mists I actually lol’d at that!
I myself am from Sweden but I respect the british army a lot. Tons of respect for your grandfather.
Sounds like he should've invaded Saudi Arabia, first.
Alex Prokhorov, its not too late for that
@@gavnonadoroge3092 well now we have enough fuel for our armed forces...
@@bluefox9436 now we only need good armed forces.
@@MouldMadeMind That's the thing...
YOU CANNOT INVADE ABDULAZIZ IBN ABDUL RAHMAN IBN FAISAL IBN TURKI IBN ABDULLAH IBN MUHAMMAD AL SAUD
“I have heard that in war haste can be folly, but have never seen delay that was wise.” - Sun Tzu
Wars cannot be prevented, one can only delay them for the benefit of others
That’s why the British/Canadians won the war of 1812. Outnumbered 10 to one, as soon as war was declared we attacked. Some places found out their country had declared war by waking up to redcoats at the gates.
At 3:00: Terrible graphics! Just horrible! Totally inaccurate!
The English didn't use tea-bags in 1939.
:-)
What did they use?
@@captainsternn7684 loose tea leaves!
The loose tea leaf was the norm. Tea bagging your snaggletoothed neighbors is what they were busy doing while the brown shirt was on the rise. Damn, all the institution of higher learning and not one dentist? Lazy Limey subservient fucks. Should have concentrated on Britain first, less on the eastern front. So many of you so called patriotic sheep remember why is a country in the first place. Any unwilling conscript in a German uniform is and was more patriotic than any left leaning pathetic loser liberal. Who will cry for you in 100 years. Who will write your history in books and on net ? Will the writing be in this English text or Arabic? Or???? Bunch of cry baby losers! Get over your self. And begin to consider the future for your children ( who most likely will kill you in your sleep anyway).
@@18wheels1966 Wake up Magic Merkel has a open door policy, you have two million Turkish plus in Germany and rising, that's just the turk's, its funny you call Germany patriotic but its the British who are breaking away from your liberal EU, the British who are taking back control of our borders and sea's and immigration. And you cannot win a war with patriotic fervour, how many patriotic Germans stopped bullet's on the Eastern Front millions. And here is a idea instead of bending over and taking it up the arse from Macron and the French, why not align with the UK the French are the lead weight that are pulling down Germany and the EU.
Teabag was in popular use by 1920
Military History Demonetized
: (
I just saw an ad. Was it remonetized or not demonetized in the first place?
Erugo It was a glitch in the matrix.
I laughed but I'm crying inside
What the hell for?
Was sitting in my armchair sipping tea watching a serious video about a serious question about WW2 when, all of a sudden and without warning, the guy pops a joke about petrol and dark humour. I almost spit my baguette out.
surprise is a key element of warfare ;)
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized I don't know if you've answer this question elsewhere, but I've been wondering what the outcome would have been if the General staff had opposed Hitler's plans to invade the USSR & then either assassinated him or imprisoned him? That would have left Germany only at war with the British Empire. Would Germany have been able to defeat Britain if it dramatically boosted its spending on aircraft and made a serious effort to gain air superiority over Britain and the The Channel over the following few years, basically playing 'defence' until a clear advantage had been achieved? Like maybe enticing the British navy into the range of its aircraft and then taking them out?
@JJ8KK That scenario definitely would off given Germany an advantage but would off took time for Germany to invade UK (most likely having USA join the war early) and still allowing UK to plan full on defence tactics. Hard to say but I would say it would be close.
@@SharpShadow7 Well, it's a scenario where you'd have to know & be able to project Germany's economic capacity to produce aircraft & ships and hope to be able to match/exceed Britain's capacity, even w/USA help.
The extra time this would have given Germany might have made possible its ability to employ those "wonder weapons" it eventually built on a larger scale. It would have been difficult for such a Germany to take on on Britain's Empire at a distance, but UK would have been most vulnerable right at home, no?
It would have also required that the "new" Germany--post-Hitler--would have had to change the one strategy that had given it so much early success: the strike fast and hard before your opponent has time to build up his defences. That change in mentality would have probably been difficult, but if the Rommel faction of the General Staff was in charge, and Hitler was out of the way, their natural sense of 'caution' might have made it possible.
The simple goal of this Alternative Germany would have been to make the English Channel impassable to British ships and to nevertheless force her to bring her assets there, within range where they could be destroyed, kinda like the Verdun strategy which kinda didn't work out as planned.
Avoiding outright war with the USA might not have been possible in the long run, but would have at least have been conceivable over that period of time when the Wonder Weapons could possibly have been brought online... A _lot_ of speculation here...
@@JJ8KK I agree, after all the reasons UK was trying to avoid going into WW2 was because lack off resources from WW1 & a repeat off trench warfare. UK managed to survive in home territory from taking advantage off Hitler's mistakes plus English channel advantage. UK took advantage while Germany was gathering there forces to attack but if all germans troops from the east was attacking UK instead then things would off ended badly for UK (most likely)
Without UK, Germany would off had a massive advantage to win the war.
Interesting to think off all the possibilities WW2 could off had and what the world would be like today if something slightly had been different.
You make excellent videos. You perform a needed public service in the face of long-standing popular myths. Cheers to you.
thank you, if you like you can support me on www.patreon.com/mhv every single dollar helps.
“Fuel is like dark humor, not everybody gets it...” hilarious and informative my man
The lesson of today’s story: if you want to win a World War, you need oil
*glances nervously at America*
Same thing with Japan in WW2.
America today however , has more than people realize .. it’s just cheaper to buy from overseas because cost of workers and running a business here vs SA.
Marquis de Lafayette don’t forget it’s better to use the foreign assets if possible to save domestic production for conflict
Damn your 🥵
Seems like the US is in prime condition to fuel a world war 👀
Germany required the gold reserves of a few countries each year to pay for its rearmament and war costs. This is one of the main reasons for yearly attacks on its neighbours in 1939/40/41
Yes
5 year credit was due and Hitler did not have it
Attack your creditors
They had realized you dont' need gold or money. You just need access to resources. Germany has a lot of coal and potash. And brains. Leveraging that was what they had to work with.
@CK Lim They took German machinery and other manufactures in trade. Because we live in a time marked by devotion to noclassical economics popularized by the likes of Mises and perpetuated by politicians who pretend that great powers must pay cash & carry like the average working class person - A nation like Germany or USSR did not need to pay British pounds for purchases of things like chromium or tobacco from Turkey or oil from Romania. They traded things like electrical machinery, machine tools, technical expertise, military hardware.
hitler invades in 1943 and is met by an armada of tens of thousands of t-34 and kv-1s.
True, and the Panther and Tiger would never be developed and they would be crushed BUT the only reason the KV1 and T34 were able to be made were because Germany gave Russia the tech to make them so yeah, Germany would win
ehm, don't think so. Most of industry in ussr was imported from usa, and engine B-2 was developed for a bomber in 30s. What tech are you talking about? After 1933 germany sold couple of pz-1 and 2 and some fighters, nothing else.Also, in this universe Germans did cooperate with soviets early on. Also, you forget that half of oil germany had for barbarossa was delivered by soviets, so without soviets germany wouldn't have had any oil for barbarossa at all
Matija Tomsic sure they would made a standstill 🤦♂️
Germaby would not win you silly Wehraboo
No they didn't. Communism is actually pretty damn good att making weapons and making war. Its everything else it fails at.
You are to be saluted for producing clear, informative videos on subjects that are often overlooked. Many people choose to forget that war has a rather large reality component.
Germans : *Breathes*
French : “Seems like a threat to me”
General Conscription is a little more than "breathing"
@@bobbyjoe1111 I mean... it's a conscription from a nation which at the time only recently were allowed 100'000 men in the army.
Meanwhile in parrarel universe : what if Hitler didnt wait?
Potentially, he invades Austria early. This antagonizes Mussolini, an ally of the Austrofascists, and the first showdown of WWII is between Germany and Italy.
From 1935-1942 Britain commissioned 5 BBs, 5 CVs, 10 CAs, 27 CLs and 117 DDs, Germans only managed 4/0/4/1/37. I think it's fair to say that had they waited longer they still would have just been outmatched by the Royal Navy and USN at war's start regardless.
mPky1 the 'wonder weapons' were never going to win the war, they could have done random damage but never defeat the allies, just anger them. Yes the V weapons were advanced but remember Britain developed the Meteor jet fighter at the same time, so the technological edge Germany had wasnt that huge as some people make out.
The Allies had "wonder weapons" of their own, like radar and fleet carriers. The fact that they WEREN'T a colossal waste of money only makes them MORE wonderful.
@@CountArtha The value of the KM was always more as a "fleet in being", requiring the Allies (esp the UK) to devote disproportionate resources to defend against them. Even with all the IRL disadvantages the KM had, they caused real problems in the Atlantic. Whilst genuinely starving the UK out was never really very realistic, they certainly did deny us easy access to resources from the Empire that we needed, making rearmament much more difficult than it could have been
@Grundy Malone You clearly need to study amphibious assaults in the European and Pacific theaters more. Germany didn't have anywhere close to enough transports and types of transports. The US didn't develop the big numbers and different types needed until later. You absolutely need naval and air superiority to protect vulnerable troop and supply transports. All the tanks and other vehicles in the world won't make a difference unless you can land them safely on another shore and supply them with gas to move, ammo to shoot, and food to feed the troops. The Allies built and transported Mulberry harbors to support D-Day. Logistics are are much more important than armchair generals realize. Just a cursory look at the massive amphibious forces of major Allied assaults will tell you tell you what the German High Command and Hitler knew - they had no hopes of invading the UK.
@Grundy Malone bet you love your little basement with the swastika flag on the wall and your nazi hentei porn
bet you wear a german helmet when you play hoi4
He attacked early because he thought Steiner would be soon ready...
der angriff steiner ist nicht erfolgt
It's good to see you have more subs than Germany had in WW2! An interesting video. Thankyou.
He shouldn't have given up so quickly on art school. What if someone had said to young Hitler "Wow. You know, these paintings are really quite good."
@Hans Günther they mean what if after he got rejected he tried to get in again? or tried a different one
He should have actually tried to hit on Stefanie Rabatsch in person, not just write an anonymous letter. Maybe impress her with a painting, then invite her to the opera.
But you know what they say: All publicity is good publicity. Hitler sure made a name for himself for the history books. Might even surpass Caesar himself...
He wasn’t a very good artist tbh, a lot of his paintings looked like amateurs
He would be a dictator AND a painter
oh come on every hoi4 player knows Germany should have memed out the soviets in 1938
The whole concept of the Wehrmachts operation between 1939 and 1941 was based on one thing: The knowledge that time would work for the enemy. The High Command knew that, if one would run into a prolonged campaign against the Allies, the outcome would be the same as in 1914- 1918. In fact, that is the war the Oberkommando originally planned for against France: A war of attrition. The French planned likewise. It was only after the defeat of France that the Generals thougth everything else should be not only possible, but a piece of cake
ViceadmiralNelson Besides we have to acknowledge that since in the previous war Russia was defeated but France resisted until the bitter end and then counter-attacked, everyone thought that ir France was already defeated in one month, the soviets wont last long either...
"Fuel is like dark humor ..." That one left me on the floor in a coughing / wheezing / laughing fit.
"Fuel is like dark humor" I LOVE THIS CHANNEL
Fuel is like dark humor, not everyone gets it
There things Hitler shouldn't have done:
1. Attacking the Soviet Union before finishing the UK.
2. Declaring war on the US.
3. Existing.
N Q H failing art school in Vienna
Yeah but how does he finish off the UK ? Literally everybody agrees that sealion would have been a suicide mission
He couldn't invade the UK due to several factors.
1, lack of air dominance
2, lack of landing craft
3, lack of naval supremacy
4, lack of oil reserves
The 4th reason was the main factor in the decision to go into Russia due to their oil fields. Control of that would of been a massive asset to the German military
@@iceice1295 but why should the USSR attacked? The purge is still in full swing and all divisions are shifting to new equipment. E.g from T26 to T34 airforce moving from L15/L16 to Yak-9s etc. The equipment will be fully ready by 42 and training will be complete probably by 43. For all the sins Stalin done. He definitely didnt want to attack Germany, he trusted Hitler so much he broke in the first days of Barbarossa
@@iceice1295 that's literal nazi propaganda my dude.
You are a superb historian and presenter of the complexities of modern warfare. I always feel rewarded with new understanding, after watching one of your programs. Many thanks!
Actually there were hidden oil fields in German territory and countries around it.
In Austria they had the Matzen oil field which reached 22 million oil barrels in just six years under a damaged Soviet economy.
Next there were more undiscovered in NW Germany(Ruehle, Brandenburg, Emlicheim, Bramberge and Georgsdorf) and in Schoonebeek Holland. All within a 25 mile radius of Schoonebeek. Discovering Schoonebeek would have diacovered the other oil fields as well. The combined output of those oil field was also 22 million (9 million from Schoonebeek and 13 million from the other German oil fields just close to Schoonebeek.)
All these oil fields all were discovered in the late 40s/early 50s by accident and used 1930s tech to drill it out. All the oil fields mentioned were all under a mile deep.
Now the discovery of these oil fields would have dramatically have fueled a much larger portion of the Wehrmacht, ensuring their early victories and possibly give them more oil to traverse deeper in the Soviet Uniom, allowing greater capture of soldiers, factories and other military equipment.
The big change will be the fuel will not synthetic based, which was expensive and horribly inefficient.
A good reason for why Germany didnt discover these oil fields in the early/mid 1930s are 1.) No luck. Had more serious explorations occur they might have found it and 2.) Short sighted thinking. No one knew oil fields were there. It appeared better at the time to invest in synthetic fuel plants and not find other fields. Hitler believed time and energy was better spent into building synthetic fuel plants.
So a point of divergence to occur where Germany has much more oil is not impossible. Somewhat plausible, but will require hard work.
So, in essence Germany could have found more oil.
I promise to deliver the sources later for the oil fields in terms of depth and production along with the tech available to showcase how they had the ability to exploit it. Just some bad luck and short sightedness stopped them.
so erm where are the sources ?
@@molcur9658 well he is right. This is a Dutch article, but it tells a part of his story. www.geheugenvandrenthe.nl/bataafsche-petroleum-maatschappij-bpm-n-v
Always easier said than done
I love the depth and precision in which you present your topic ,, spot on 👌
I’ve always thought it intriguing that German armies in the west could have been used by the Allies to continue the war against the Soviets
Ike
...in theory if they were robots instead of humans, yes they could. This is exactly what Patton thought should be done and look what happened to him, though. Also England's economy was exhausted by 1945, as was their manpower supplies, Russia and most of Europe too, was wrecked from end to end, there had been around 100 million dead, and everybody just wanted it to end. It would have been cruel in the extreme to everyone left alive, to simply form up the western armies and have them march east, atom bomb or no atom bomb.
@@robertmaybeth3434 The Red Army probably would have won or at least forced a peace. Heck, the only reason Stalin didn't invade Europe in 1948 was because of The Bomb.
@@CountArtha The only reason Stalin didn't invade Europe was that he didn't need that.
@Jack Dorsen I didn't know that! That makes his "car accident" appear in a whole different light, to me. Truman didn't need Patton anymore by then, is there anybody more expendable than a General officer after a war's been won? Especially one who's actively trying to start another war on his own authority?
Well researched and very well-reasoned. The only comment that I would make is that neither the U.S. nor the U.K. seemed to recognize the extent of the threat of Nazi Germany and Japan prior to the outset of the war. Both British Parliament and the U.S. Congress were divided in their perception of the risks posed by Germany and the need for extensive military expenditures. Economics notwithstanding, there would have likely been a considerable delay in any significant Allied response to Germany's continued military build-up (particularly from the U.S.) As you've pointed out: Germany faced its own internal economic limitations. Great channel. Really enjoy the vids. Keep them coming!
In the words of Napoleon "The best battle plan never survives it's first encounter with the enemy". Good analysis!
The question I would ask is could the Nazis have waited for the Soviet Union to attack Poland or even the Baltic states on their own? Would France and Britain support Germany in an anti-communist war or just watch as the totalitarian states destroyed each other? As always another great video!
france probably not - not back then. britain maybe.
Hitler agreed with Stalin that they both will attack on the 1st of September. Then GB wouldnt start a war with both dictatorships. A war that GB could not win. Stalin "was not ready" till 17 of September but he knew how ready the Red army was when Soviets proposed that plan. And Hitler got fooled into a 2 front war. The thing that Germany always feared.
Paciat My premise is the only way Germany was going to get the 'living room ' they desired was at the expense of the Soviets. The only way this could happen is if either the Western European countries allied with them or stood aside.
It would probably not be possible but it would have been a great idea if the soviets actually attacked. Mostly cuz without a war aganist the Allies they would have no blockade and meh relations with the world so Germany would had oil, food and maybe they would even avoid bankruptcy, last one is a little far-fetched tho.
If Germany doesn't start expansion to the East then there is no reason for the Soviet Union to invade Poland, Finland and the Baltic states.
I just found your channel recently and am loving your content, it's very well thought out and researched, but I do have one question in regards to this, in the buildup to WW2 Germany put forth a very hostile and belligerent face toward France, Britain and much of the rest of Europe, which when combined with their rearmament saw their enemies building up their forces as well. But what if Hitler has been smart enough to put forth a less confrontational appearance and didn't push a massive rearmament program, and instead for a few years put in place much slower, and less threatening build up of their forces, at the same time putting more energy into it's military research and development?
This would likely have eased tension in the allied powers, and not resulted in their committing to the buildups that they did, such that the forces that had at that time where all equipped with the best equipment possible, so when they started the massive buildup to war, they would have been in a much better starting position, and thus been faster off the mark then the allies. Note this would be taking place Japan's expansion would be continuing in the Pacific and thus the allies would likely have committed more of their forces to holding back the Japanese advance, since at that time Germany would be appearing to be less of a threat, at least until Germany surged it's preparations for war.
I know there are a lot of assumptions here, but I don't think any of them are unreasonable, and since Germany would have started it's main buildup after it had already modernized most of it's existing military structure the build up would be much easier as it would just need to add to it's forces instead of trying to add to it's forces at the same time that it was modernizing it's current force.
This would not solve their fuel issue, at least not directly, but it might have allowed them to gain more resources, much faster, thus resolving many of their supply issues in the early years of the war.
If Germany waited, the Soviets would have completed its own rearmament, and in Hitler's own conclusions that the Soviets would, once reforms were completed annex Romania.
If Romania was annex it's game over for Germany before a war even starts.
You're assuming Germany HAD to launch a European war. If they had stayed home, like a peaceful nation, none of it would have been necessary at all.
Twirlip Of The Mists
Do you know what the soviets intended to do in the first place, mate?
Gendermans, we are all businessman!
Well if Germany stayed the Weimar Republic or wasn't Nazi Germany, they most likely would have been fine.
The reason I say this is because Mein Kampf had been out for years and Hitler's plans to invade Russia had been out for all the world to see. This understandably made the Soviets deeply insecure.
James Tang
Yep, both sides were fueling their own paranoias to the point where both became partially justified. It was like trying their best to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. It's what every arms race does - but not every arms race has some crazy ideologies attached.
Cold War one at least had "MAD" dangling over everyone. But given how enthusiastic Adolf was about a world where strong eat weak, MAD wouldn't have helped to sober everyone up - and communists would've declared that "12-year plan makes MAD void because Marx and Lenin predicted it" or something. Sounds like something a regime that was stupid enough to confiscate seed grain would do.
James Tang
Perhaps you should look up how Stalin reacted when he was informed with the commencement of Operation Barbarossa. The Soviets were deeply insecure by Hitler's plan? That can't be further from the truth, I'm afraid. Stalin was a political realist, so he conjectured that Hitler as a dictator like him must be as politically realistic as he was, and "Mein Kampf" was rather a piece of propaganda than a blueprint of actions.
UK, France, and Poland were getting ready for war in 1941 or 1942. For UK and France they were predictions, and for Poland it was necessity. Poland was too poor to stay always ready. And, yes, the Poles knew that even if they were as ready as possible and even if they guessed when the war was going to start correctly, they still could not win on their own. Moreover, the plan to be as-ready-as-possible by late 1941 was facing delays (money). For example: Poles wanted to convert all the cavalry brigades into motorized-mechanized brigades. Since some cavalry brigades resisted transformation, it is likely that Poland would have ended up with 12 to 14 motorized-mechanized brigades and 12 to 14 cavalry brigades (to be fair, the Polish cavalry did appreciate organic armored companies of tankettes and armored cars as well as AT cannons and AT rifles). The bottom line is that the Poles were creating only 1 such motorized-mechanized brigade per year (1938, 1939, 1940, and 1941 is 4 years, so 4 brigades and not 12 to 14).
Poland could've won against the USSR, and they could've given the Germans a bloody enough nose to dissuade them from further campaigns, but facing bot together was basically impossible
Though you got your point across, when I saw this video the first thing I thought of was the Soviet Union.
I felt the Germans attacked at the right time cuz if they waited any longer the soviets would just get more and more powerful, until they were at the point they were at at 1944.
@Jan Krynicky Why? He already purged every single officer and party official to the point where all that was left was people that only said yes to Stalin. having only 3 years go by until the next purge of half the armed forces wouldn't make any sense, as all of the traitors were killed in the first purge(as wel as many other innocents) and in 4-5 years time people would still remember the first purge very well, so why the fuck would Stalin do 2 seperate purges within 5 years? It makes no sense, it's not like Stalin purged his army after ww2 either, so why would he do it twice anyways? On top of that, the more hitler waited the more powerful the US would've became as well.
@Jan Krynicky Your right, it doesn't make sense for him to purge his army twice in 5 years. If that was the case, that he could be easily convinced to purge his army, why didn't he do it after world war 2? Or the many years following that? If he really was that trigger happy with purging, we would've seen another purge of the size of the first one some where in history. But we don't. Besides, Trosky was dead so there's even less of a reason to purge.
Hate to use 'hindsight' but it obviously not the right time for Germany to invade. How do I know this? They lost!
The longer Germany waited the stronger the Soviets would get yes, but they wouldn't get as strong as in the actual war for a variety of reasons, the most important being that they weren't in a major war, so they just wouldn't have such an emphasis on rushing out arms as quick as possible or conscripting as many soldiers, another reason is that America supplied pretty much all Soviet trucks, a large amount of ammunition and a lot of planes came from Britain and the USA, also a massive amount of metal came from the USA, obviously they wouldn't have all this so that means they would have to divide far more resources to their own aircraft, ammunition and especially trucks Also Stalin had massive plans for building up a navy so some resources would go there too, so overall they obviously won't be as strong in 1944 as they were in reality, it just simply isn't feasible
One thing to also be noted. Is what happened to the Russians in the early part of the German invasion. They had plenty of troops and vehicles, most were obsolete. However the T-34 which was a match for the Panzers where just beginning to see service. If Russia had enough T-34's and had them deployed the early days of the war, it could have gone much different.
Many of the German super weapons were a response to the Allies countering existing German arms. So you might not of known you needed to build Me 262 over Me 109's. World war 2 was only 6 years long, a relatively short period for arms development, for example the development of the F-35 started in 1992.
brgessner That is a complete misunderstanding.
Russia had lots of T-34 in 1941 when the invasion happened. Over 1000 to be exact. Almost as much as panzer 3 and 4s combined.
And unlike some anecdotal stories the t-34 most of the time did not propose a big threat to the Germans even if it had better armor and main gun compared to German tanks.
USSR had enough equipment to take on Germany, the problem was that the military was shit in terms of experience from the purge and Stalin didn't think Hitler would attack as soon as he did. The biggest reason for German success in the start was the surprise attack followed by USSR being out of position for a defensive war followed by excellent German strategic moves.
@@bingobongo1615 Very oversimplified and naive take. There are several other factors which curbed the effect of T-34s / KV-1s in the early days
Man, you teach me so much about logistics and operations! I really view military history through a different light thanks to you and Hearts of Iron (not that it’s a perfect representation but it gives a good idea of certain military concepts)
I was wondering, if you have the time, what you would’ve done as the French High Command previous to WWII given what we know now? And when would you have liked to begin your reforms (like you said in this vid, a build up requires both time as well as money money)?
Baguette with sauerkraut is actually quite nice... not exclusively, of course.
Great. Now I'm hungry.
And tons of ketchup.
English Mustard surely!
Don't forget a big fat frankfurter with that :)
definitely not ketchup ! but Moutarde de Dijon
EXCELLENT presentation and well documented. Thanks very much. Greetings from Mexico City.
Someone said that, "500 years from now, future historians will call the period 1935-1945 The War for Oil".
It was the conversion from coal to oil power in shipping that made evident to England-Germany-Japan-Italy that OIL was going to be a bottleneck resource, a deal-breaker. The USSR and USA had plenty of reserves and other problems to distract them from this issue for a few years, while England increased her oil reserves and Germany began synthetic research. Ultimately, the search for oil sources led to Germany increasing her military, increasing her need for oil, rinse-and-repeat until the problem reaches crisis level.
War was unavoidable after Versailles, give or take a couple years. Only a rational English treaty with Germany would prevent WWII, but this was impossible after strangling the Wiemar Republic in the 1920s.
Very informative video MHV! I recall reading a quip somewhere (possibly in Alan Bullock) that Nazi Germany started its war both too early and too late - too early in the sense that its military forces had not sufficiently developed their capabilities to achieve its aims and too late in that its major adversaries had sufficiently mobilized or developed their military forces to resist or intervene against it. (I also recall reading that Hitler subsequently felt 'cheated' of victory because Germany would have been better off starting war over Czechoslovakia rather than the Allies postponing it to Poland). My own view is that Nazi Germany had a very narrow window of opportunity in starting war at all with any apparent prospect of success, effectively between its own rearmament and those of its adversaries, in which more time only favored the latter - although a more rational view of that narrow window of opportunity would have been to avoid going to war at all. If anything, it might be argued that Nazi Germany started war against Britain and France at the best possible time (and similarly attacked the Soviet Union at the optimal time of German advantage and Soviet disadvantage) - and that was as good an opportunity as it was ever going to get (both in 1939 against Britain and France - and in 1941 against the Soviet Union and arguably even in its declaration of war against the United States). I note Tooze seems to have a similar view, in that although Hitler probably would have preferred to bluff Britain and France out of their guarantee to Poland, he was certainly willing to risk war with them because German prospects would only worsen from that time. (Germany was arguably doubly lucky in its narrow window of opportunity - in that its offensive success coincided with a tactical balance in which mobile offensive firepower had gained the advantage over defence, and its defensive success coincided with the balance swinging back to defensive firepower from 1942-1943).
A more interesting question might be whether the Allies - Britain and France - should have waited. That is, whether they could or should have effectively bought time or postponed war, by not giving (or acting upon) their guarantee to Poland in the manner that they did.
The dark horse was really the French army... if you wait until 1942 the French mechanized forces probably all have radios.
Which they would have dropped along with their rifles...
The French get bad press.
This is fair, but I would seriously have questioned their sanity to wait just that long; too soon, and they run the risk of not fielding enough forces to really dent the French line, too late and the french bridge some of the technical gap.
My only problem here is, I do not know what french designers were planning for Tank design for the foreseeable future. Tanks were still often discussed as relic weapons or as support, rather than an independent mechanized fist. I believe a French general had recognized the utility some point near/during the war and had moved to push for further development. Too little, too late.
Infantry was still king, although this isn’t to say French design was terribly far behind, as the Char B1-Bis was well armored enough to stop anything a Panzer could put out, up to the Panzer III.
David Thorp the tanks design wasn’t as much a problem as deployment, the concentrated panzer divisions quickly over whelmed the French tanks which were scattered with the infantry
@@davidthorp01 Generally most french tanks could easily beat any Panzers at the time in a 1v1, but german tactics made sure that almost never happened.
M.H.V. Haven't watched a video of your's in awhile (bad on me)! I forgot how much work you put into your videos - it clearly shows. I cancelled one of my accounts that I had used to subscribe to WW1/WW2 based channels "accidentally though - I'm an idiot on purpose". I'm almost a year late to this video but still say "Well Done".
best facts ww2 channel, the host knows what he's talking about
The " LIMINAL MESSAGES" pun TORPEDOed my sense of humor XD
Not only this. You simply cannot develop high advanced tanks for example until you see what enemy has. Putting high caliber guns on Pancers and Tigers was result of seeing T-34 amour in battle. Without this knowledge, Wermacht would just continue to produce more Pancer 3 with some minor upgrades, but for sure they would not consider 88mm guns. Same with antitank guns. Basically you dont know what you need until you try it in a war.
yeah but the enemy would also lack the expirience to research their better units, there wouldn't be IS 2 and KV's for the soviets nor any of the late war weapons ANY of the allies had. so the playing field there is even.
@@sosig6445 KV was developed before the war
whats the difference between motorized and mechanized?
wheels vs. (half-)tracks.
a small amount of armor plating.
A motorized Division have much trucks.
A mechanized division uses more half-tracks, APCs, IFVs and such.
Motorised uses almost exclusively trucks. Mechanized will have half tracks and maybe a couple of light tanks in support.
Wheels vs tracks and usually mechanized eludes to the ability of the units to fight without leaving their AFVs while motorized could mean just moving troops around on trucks and other motor vehicles
Or Germany didnt have to do any of this, invading Poland (why??) Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh knew.
I love the Jack-in-the-box at 1.02.
Or perhaps it is a Jerry-in-the-Boche?
I'd say that the issue wasn't going to war too early. I think the bigger mistake was Hitler trying to bite off more than he could chew.
If he started out with Poland and then consolidated his position there for a few years, he would probably have been more successful. Britain and France might've rattled their sabers but I doubt they would have made any serious commitment in trying to liberate Poland from German occupation.
The success in Poland just seems to have made the Nazis overconfident.
mPky1: All lands conquered needs to be occupied for quite a long time afterwards. There's no real way around it, since you turn the population of a conquered land your enemy as soon as you declare and wage war on them in the first place.
It's not like you can conquer a nation by not killing anyone or destroying someones property, so it's next to impossible to do it while maintaining popular support among the population of the enemy country.
So there's always a period of "cracking heads and restoring order" after the enemy government and armed forces have been forced to surrender. Which is why I point out the problem with Hitler being overly ambitious and not respecting the necessary timeframe needed to pacify a newly conquered population.
He believed that since they achieved a swift military victory in Poland, he should just keep going, dedicating most resources and manpower towards invading the next country on his hitlist.
Not only did it leave newly conquered territories vulnerable to local insurgency, but the speed of his conquests also instilled a greater sense of alarm and urgency in other foreign enemies like France, Britain and Russia.
The trick is to slowly conquering your neighbours while projecting a complete lack of ambition towards conquest to the people watching you. Basically: drop the frog in boiling water and it will jump out immediately. But drop the frog in cold water and then slowly increase the heat, and the frog will allow itself to be boiled alive without any intervention.
Classic deception, all according to the principles of Sun Tzu.
"All lands conquered needs to be occupied for quite a long time afterwards. There's no real way around it, since you turn the population of a conquered land your enemy as soon as you declare and wage war on them in the first place."
France being liberated in 44 begs to differ.
This sort of welcome could have been possible for Germany in the war against the Soviet union also if the had been less you know , nazi. It was not lost on many of the local population of Ukraine and the Baltic states that Germany and her allies had ensured their independence from Russia after WW1, however shortlived that independence was for Ukraine. If they had acted less like racial purists, and more pragmatic, atleast during the early days of the invasion, they could have formed dozens of divisions from these countries. The people there had more than enough reason and will to fight back against the Soviet union. More than any other blunder that was the biggest one throughout the war by germany, to alienate and abuse these people immediately.
I do not imagine that the nazis could have ever not murdered all those people in the end, it was after all the largest impetus for this war in the east, to clear the lands and move in german settlers. But if they had taken a more pragmatic approach in the early days they could have harvested alot of goodwill and resources from these people until the red army was mostly beaten at which point they could turn on them, or if someone less insane stuck a dull blade through old Adolfs brain in the meantime, and decided to continue the good relations.
France was making raids on Germany's western border and probably would've invaded if Germany did nothing back to them
Sure the Soviets won't make any moves after 1942
Or that the French army still existed in an organized sense combined with the UK blockade
Perhaps a better question might have been, would it have made a difference if Germany had immediately put its industry on a war footing at the outbreak of war in 1939?
This is an extremely sensible analysis. There is, however, one aspect you don't touch on - and which is something I hope you will make the subject of a future video. Why was German arms production so appalling DURING the war - or at least during the first half of it?
In 1940, Germany built fewer than 2,000 tanks. In 1944, they built almost 20,000. Why the discrepancy? I can think of no valid economic reason why Germany shouldn't have been capable of reaching 1944 levels in 1940. Indeed, since the strategic bombing campaign had had little effect, Germany ought - in theory at least - have been able to build more than 20,000 tanks in 1940.
This is a question that has long puzzled me. The nearest thing to a plausible answer I've seen was that the Germans managed to convince themselves that they would be fighting a short, victorious war, and that expending too much effort on war production would be wasteful. I would very much like to hear your opinion on this.
look at my Army Expansion 1933-1939 video, the industry and resource situation was fucked up. They always changed plans, etc. see also my Common Misconceptions, where I state that the German military was against manufacturing belts, because they wanted to be able to change the production fast.
Then there was competition all around etc. probably way more points, but I have to finish Tooze's Wages of destruction first.
Also Germany lacked standardization etc. LOADS of types and subtypes, e.g., one of late Panzer IV models was basically just the same as the previous, but with some improvements for mass production... yeah a late Panzer IV variant, so you can guess that it was a bit late for that.
Because Htiler 1. made his career on consumer goods availability, like armament, founded by MEFO fraud 2. Even after Barbarossa began, Htiler persistently refused shifting economy on war track and onto full gear. 1939 - 1941 development of armour almost stopped and had it been not for Czech factories, shortages would have been greater.
For one thing, they were far slower to allow women into the workforce. The USSR, due to giving everyone the same rights (absolutely none), put women on equal footing, for the most part, giving almost double the pool of workers and soldiers to choose from, allowing high production despite the time it took for quality control to improve.
in the US, there was still a refusal to allow women in the military for the most part (and there still is), but we were far quicker than Germany to allow women to take factory jobs, and we even got over some of our racial discrimination policies out of necessity.
In short, it was the same thing that cause the mess to begin with: arrogance and supremicism.
Forced labour had to do a lot with it I imagine. 5,7 million conscripts made to fight for the Russians surrendered.
Many volunteered for the nazis, for example as occupational troops (Osttruppen) either because they hated their Russian occupier or because it improved their own conditions. Many were simply forced to work as slaves.
In addition, there was a call for forced labour in occupied countries like the Netherlands. Then later there were hunts for men of working age. Eventually the penalty for labour dodging was execution.
So basically you must've had millions of (unenthousiastic) workers flooding into the nazi war industry over the years. That has to have increased production.
It would be really hard for extra conscription during the war to account for millions of workers leaving the war industry.
@Call Me Ishmael Indeed, and that is why they needed Narvik in 1940.
Very good Video, very concise, unbiased and informative keep up the good work.
His single biggest mistake was not helping Italy in 1940. If they'd taken Malta in August 1940 instead of trying to pressure England to a ceasefire and rolled up Egypt with Italy it would have been game over. Control of Malta, the Suez canal and Alexandria in addition with the air cover available, would have driven the British out of the Med. Do that in 1940, and the occupation of the Balkans/Greece etc would not have been necessary, Syria was still Vichy, and all the oil of Libya and Iraq/Saudi etc, plus Iran would have not been invaded.
Cuts two ways as well, the resource drain of being stuck fighting in the Med took the sting out of Barbarossa.
7:40 TIK did an entire video explaining that it would be impossible for the germans to create more motorized divisions due to oil supplies. he goes much further in depth on the oil topic
if anyone wants to see it here is the link
th-cam.com/video/kVo5I0xNRhg/w-d-xo.html
Problem is, he only goes into the oil. There were a lot more reasons why it just wasn't possible. MHV names quite some of them (Germany being almost bankrupt for example), but there is other stuff like German companies not being experienced in assembly line production, the steel needed for such a motorization just not being there (or affordable) and on top of that...there just weren't enough drivers. Cars were still something for the higher class in Germany in the 1930s, they would have had to put hundreds of thousands of soldiers through a drivers training...and what a rushed drivers training could do to the capabilities of a mechanized force was shown in 1941 by the Red Army.
if you have sources for the steel industry can you list them? I would like to read about that. thanks
These just underscore some of the advantages the United States had. They had the resources, the production experience(after all Ford first created and used assembly line production in the auto industry) and cars were relatively common in the United States as well.
The comment section will be gold!
Indeed it is. Jewish gold sold to the Swiss to be specific.
Just kidding.
Actually, even if they did try to build up their military, everybody else would've noticed. Inevitably.
This. This is the problem many 'what if nazi germany win' scenarios never took into consideration, always assuming that your enemy is passive
And finally there is a guy who really understands "nöthing" - hätte ich auch nicht besser schreiben können hehehe. Super Content
Danke!
As someone else pointed out, the biggest flaw in building a ship to 'match' an enemy ship is that such rivals almost never meet each other in combat.
Wieder toll gemacht!! 😉
Ich hab mein Meister in Europäische Geschichte gemacht (mittelalterliche) und ich gucke gerne historische TH-cam Videos an, ihre Kanal ist mir am liebsten
Edward Ludwig auchtung!
his fatal mistake was opening a second front in Russia.
@Karl Quetzacoatl Debatable, but perhaps. I do think think that African front was totally that though. Seems like that was around a 15 million ton expedition if I recall correctly, not to mention Romania. Just think, if someone would've bought his art, maybe it wouldn't have ever happened.
@Karl Quetzacoatl Even IF the Germans solely focussed on the Western and Southern Front for some reason, the Soviets wouldve been the one to take a first Strike against Germany. A war between the two was inevitable.
Hitler's biggest and crucial mistake was to fight on two fronts and to underestimate the Russians.
Great channel and vids. I like your accent =) Keep up the great work.
Eye opening. Thank you!
Excellent. When I wade in to my research of WW2 the 'pre war' history is the only thing that interests me now. I'll have to read "Wages of Destruction" again. The parallel of the 30's to today is remarkable..
Luftwaffe with all Jet Fighters and Fast Attack Stealth Bombers
Heer with all Assault Rifles and Panzerfaust and Better Skilled SS.
Kriegsmarine with more Submarine, Destroyers.
America with B-36. GG
Minor correction : we, French, do love sauerkraut, with or without baguette.
You do? I was not aware. Is there a special name for the combination of both dishes?
@@terbentur2943 Yes, it is called "baguette with sauerkraut".
Franck Michaux bratwurst im dein sauerkraut
Hence the white flag.
300 infantry divisions
60 tank divisions and motorised division
s
fuel reserves for 40 years
italy player knows what he is doing
*PROFIT*
Italy should have stayed neutral like Spain.
"Who wants to eat a baguette with sauerkraut" is a better joke than I thought Germans could make
always enjoy your content. will support you when I get some money
I tell these armchair generals that there was no way the Germany could have conquered the world in WW II! Germany just did not have the manpower or the resources to do so. At best Germany could of conquered a empire from the Atlantic to the Urals. And that's it!
Germany was doomed to defeat in WWII.
Germany was never set on conquering the world. That is an allied lie.
As was said, Germany didn't want to conquer the world, not even western europe. Hitler was always planning expansion to the east. France and Britain suppporting Poland made the war in the west a necessity.
I disagree with your conclusions over allied response readiness if Germany would have had a fleet of 300 U-Boats at the start of WW2. Just look what Germany did with those 40 U-boats and the Royal navy could not properly escort and protect merchant ships in the Atlantic until mid to late 1942. What would of happen if Germany had 120 U-boats at start of WW2, probably the Royal Navy would have been larger but would it had made that much of a difference against 3 times as many U-boats. Thankfully we will never know, my hat off to the brave men of the Royal Navy and Merchant Marine. Not that the U-boat men were not brave but hey they were the enemy. Actually the enemy were/are the leaders that sent/send men off to fight needless wars.
You missed the point, having a sizable U-boat fleet would've made the Allies more aware of the threat of u boats before the war. And the Allies would be far better prepared to deal with them once the war started.
A plan that assumes a passive enemy isn't a plan, its daydream
I would just caution you that the consequences of your proposal wouldn't have gone unnoticed
and thus the RN at the beginning of WW2 could have looked a lot different also.
The 300 boat theory is often thrown up for discussion , but from that you would have to lose
around 10-20% as training boats, with the remainder split equally between going out on patrol,
coming back from patrol and R&R. Thus you may only have 80 boats actually on station, and not
the mystical 300! However 80 boats would have caused more damage than in reality but the losses
in U-Boat may well have been proportionally higher.
Doenitz at the time when proposing 300 u boats didn't realized that airpower is going to be significant in dealing with u boats
Yes, he should have waited, indefinitely, he should have stopped at being chancellor.
@tsunderella LOL no, it was better to launch a war that killed tens of millions, lose it, and have Germany divided, right? go back to your basement with Nazi memorabilia
@Warafare48 There was no way that Patton's plan would be successful. Americans, British and French in 1945 were completely indoctrinated to believe that soviet Union were their friends. They fought side by side during many conquests. If the allies immediately attacked Stalin after the yalta conference without any provocative action by the erstwhile soviet Union. Let me tell you the scenario won't be pretty. For the citizens, who had just came out of the most bloody war in history. These would be the worst case of betrayal. Mutinies would have taken place in the allied armed forces. Soldiers would have refused to fight their Russian comrades. Communism was at rise all over the world which would eventually lead to communists parties being popular and their banning would invite further resistance. The Soviets would not have just accepted defeat too. For them this would be the worst betrayal by the people they considered allies. They would fight till death to protect their homeland. And this is the best case scenario. If US resorted to using nuclear bombs it would immediately lead to a complete collapse of the USA and could eventually lead to world communism as predicted by many.
@@aviatorraj7820 I brought this up back in the 60's with a friend's father who had been an infantry sergeant in in Europe in WWII and later became an administrator and taught graduate classes in the school of social work at a major research university. He said this: "If some lieutenant had told us to start fighting the Russians we would have shot him."
You also allude to the issue of the American home front. The home front would have rebelled against the move as well. The American home front was factor in the calculations of both allies and foes. The strategy of the Japanese at that time was to keep the war going long enough that the American home front rebelled against the policy of unconditional surrender and demanded that with Japan no longer a threat to us or are allies the government negotiated an end to the war in the Pacific. The atomic bomb abd entry of the Soviet Union into the war was the one-two that forced the Japanese unconditional surrender. They did it quickly in order to avoid occupation of a major part of the their country by the Soviet Union.
Back to the original issue. The idea was just unthinkable.
@@anonymike8280 As you might have noticed I did mention the home front. And yes I agree, the idea was totally unthinkable.
@@mrvk39 Yeah, Germany should have done what the Russians, Americans, French and British did and consulted an ethics committee before legally murdering several hundred million people and occupying their land.
Either that or Germany should have taken it up the ass and meekly allowed itself to be exploited just like the countless other colonies of the allied empires. Goddamnit Germany, why do you have to launch wars of aggression while we're trying to conquer half the world! It's so inconvenient when our helpless victims actually fight back.
My understanding is that the Germans were using synthetic oils and fuel made from coal (Fischer Tropsich process). They had 27 such plants operating. I thought there was no major shortages until Barbarossa and it's accompanying overreach.
2:27 - "As such, one might argue that if Germany had just built more subs, they could have beaten the Royal Navy." No, German strategists recognized that outright defeat of the Royal Navy was out of reach. Rather, the main use for U-boats was commerce raiding. Given the enormous success the U-boats enjoyed initially against the British merchant ships, and then again in early 1942 against the even less prepared Americans, it's reasonable to ask whether a few more U-boats during the critical early months of the war could have starved the British into armistice or even surrender. Since neither the British nor the Americans were adequately prepared for the relatively few U-boats they faced initially, we may wonder whether the Germans could have built more U-boats before the onset of hostilities while maintaining a similar proportional advantage of preparedness, as it were. That is, suppose the Germans would have doubled their U-boat construction pre-war, and the British and Americans would have countered by doubling their counter-submarine preparedness. With all else being equal, that might have roughly doubled the early Allied merchant shipping losses, possibly starving Britain of the food, fuel, and other imported material that enabled it keep fighting. No amount of heroism during the Battle of Britain changed the fact that most of the fuel, food, metals, and so on that kept the Royal Air Force flying and shooting had to travel across the Atlantic in slow vulnerable merchant ships.
If i remember rightly, Stalin was also planing an offensiv against Germany in the same time period. Thats why there where so many troops getting captured in the beginning of WWII.
Nordvin Bjørnson that idea is not widely accepted by historians. True, they hated each other.
I read an autobiography of a german pilot and he mentioned several preparations of military infrastructure on the soviet side.
You are wrong nordvin
www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/05/13/the-lies-about-world-war-ii/
www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-understanding-world-war-ii/
One point I think was missed (thou may have been outside the scope of this video) was the massive Russian armourment at the time. After the Winter War especially, the major deficiencies highlighted by the Finnish were rapidly being addressed. Considering the lopsided casualty figures between the Eastern and Western front, I believe that aspect was of far greater importance than that of the Western allies. My question for you would then be would you think that delaying Barbarossa would have been benifical to the wars outcome, or was the actual date the best of all possible disasters?
This is the one question in this comment section not influences by Hitler-loving idiots...
Short of pouring everything into aircraft carriers (which is still a big if given that they were unproven tech at the time) I doubt Germany could have ever built up the Kriegsmarine enough to seriously challenge the Royal Navy. Prior to World War 1 Germany spent 20 years putting everything it possibly could into building a world class navy, yet it was nowhere near enough and ended up accomplishing very little besides alienating the largest empire in the world. In the 30's Germany was starting over completely in virtually aspect of their armed forces and realistically would have been better off just focusing on air and land power instead of pointless white sea elephants.
@0utc4st1985: The ratio of raw materials and productive capacity was 6 (Luftwaffe) : 3 (Army) : 1 (Navy). So they did concentrate on Air- and Landpower.
Yeah GB hade the good fortune to be able to focus on its navy as a first line of defence. You can have the strongest army or the strongest navy but not both unless you are a continent like the US or China that is...
@Zerko - Each of the two Bismarck class battleships that Germany built weighed in at about 42,000 tons each. Each Panther weighed 44 tons, so for the material price of two battleships that did nothing they could have had more than 1,900 Panthers that could have made much more of a difference. Of course there's other battleships they built too like the Scharnhorst, which also did nothing. I haven't looked at fuel requirements but I think it's a safe bet the fuel used would have probably been fairly similar to that number of Panthers too.
@0utc4st1985: You missed obe thing: Timeline! Q: When were these ships built? A: Bismarck was laid down at the Blohm & Voss shipyard on 1 July 1936; Tirpitz's keel was laid at the Kriegsmarine dockyard in Wilhelmshaven on 20 October 1936. Q: When was the first Panther built? A: December 1942. Q: How many Panthers could Germany produce in 1936? A: 0
0utc4st1985 no. They would have all gotten sunk. Carriers utility is striking land further from ground based air strips. They could reach England from France. So your first sentence I find foolish. However beyond that I agree
I think that Germany's huge success early in the war proves that they were more ready than anyone else
Who wants to eat a Baguette with Sauerkraut? That killed me... ;)
That is a disturbing image.
To say "Hitler should have waited" requires an assumption that Hitler be able to not be Hitler.
I love your videos. I am wide open to supporting on Patreon. However, the “every reichsmark counts” thing raised an eyebrow. I’m afraid I only have East German Marks. Are those accepted?
One issue that nobody here mentions is that if the war hadn't started until 1948 or so the British colonial empire would have already begun to unravel. Germany would have been much better served if it then had supported various independence movements, much as the USSR later did during the Cold Car. Also, Japan would have benefited if it could have imported strategic resources from newly independent countries rather than be dependent on the USA.
But the world wars are the best what the colonies happend, because it's realy usefull when you overlords kill each other
This makes no sense. The reason that the colonies wanted independence was because of the 2nd world war. This was because of the allies' constant propaganda of "the free world" and "free Europe" and the colonies got angry because of the hipocrisy. Not only that but the colonial empires like Britain were exhausted by the war, and had no intention to fight another. So if there was any time to ask for independence, it was during that time. And you gotta remember, that Australia, New Zealand and Canada to this day still work close together with the UK when it comes to foreign conflicts. So to say that the UK wouldn't have had any support from them if they were independent, is such a baseless claim.
@@codwawgamerzz You fail to consider that India was the most important British colony and it was the cornerstone of the empire. By the late 1930s the independence movement in India had become so strong that even many British colonial officials considered it only a matter of time before the country became independent. Moreover, Gandhi's nonviolent protest movement had also greatly resonated in the UK itself, where more and more people were willing to support Indian independence. World War II may have actually delayed Indian independence rather than accelerating it (which was probably the case in Africa). After losing India, the British Empire would have been greatly weakened, although this wouldn't have affected the UK's relations with Australia, Canada, South Africa, or New Zealand. I never made any such claim, either. Another country that needs to be considered in this respect is the Philippines. The Tydings-McDuffie Act of 1934 paved the way for Philippine independence following a ten-year transition period. As a result, the Philippines was granted commonwealth status in 1935 and would have become fully independent in 1944. World War II delayed this until 1946. After Philippine independence, anti-colonial pressure would have greatly increased throughout Asia. It's therefore hard to say whether the Dutch and French could have held onto their colonies in Southeast Asia for much longer than they actually did. What I mainly want to point out is that too many people seem to assume that the Western colonial empires could have somehow made it through the 1940s without adverse effect if World War 2 hadn't happened. This is a complete fallacy. In relative terms, the UK and France would have become increasingly weaker compared to Germany. Besides the USSR, the main long-term opponent that Hitler faced was certainly not Britain, but the United States. Despite all of Germany's rearmament efforts, the country had no chance of contending with America in the long-run. As the Naval Act of 1938 showed, the U.S. Navy would have swept the Kriegsmarine from the seas even if Plan Z could have been realized.
@@davemorgan6013 I agree with Lord Spast, you cannot assume that the colonial powers would have allowed their empire to unravel had the World War not happened. England would have had much more resources, public support, and military power to stop any such actions. While you are right, WW2 or not there would have been continued calls for independence across the British empire, that does not mean they would have been succesful.
WW2 had a profound effect on the world - it is impossible to say what it would look like had it not happened.
@@so8907 The war definitely had a profound effect, but I have to disagree with you on major points. In fact, the war briefly strengthened British resolve to hang onto India because they could not let go of such a valuable asset in wartime. Moreover, it is unlikely that Churchill, who was a vociferous opponent of Indian independence, would have become prime minister without the disaster in France. Under Chamberlain, let alone under a Labour government, the UK would not have been willing to keep India at all costs. An armed uprising would have become increasingly likely in India by 1943 if the peaceful independence efforts had not borne any fruit. I do not believe that British voters would have condoned the use of massive military force to crush such a rebellion, which would have been far more severe (and costly) than the Mau Mau Uprising of the 1950s, for example.
I interrupt this program to tell you that the MinimizeScreen button in youtube fullscreen mode is the Wehrmacht Cross
I never noticed that.
What if Hitler had kept to the Molotov-Ribbentrop agreement and, instead of opening up a second front, he focused his forces on Britain and North Africa. Could he have achieved victory there, thereby securing oil in the Middle-East?
What if Germany just skipped the whole world war and instead became a moderate imperial power and maintained relations to both east and west?
Many revisionists assert the west boxed Germany into a position they had no choice. But if this is so, that is Hitler's failing entirely.
Hitler was NOT prepared to be moderate. Besides, his re-armament was dependent on constant annexations.
@@48917032 Yeah- he was almost constitutionally incapable of taking a good deal and calling it a win. Like Napoleon. Always another hill to take.
that would require a somewhat rational approach to life, of which all extreme ideologies like nazism are incapable by definition.
My favorite part part of this channel is, we all get to hear a German breakdown how feeble Hitler’s plans of European domination were. If such a technical, not ideological (emotional), mind had been in play how many more people would be alive today!
Yes, his army and forces were legit still in their beta's. They tried their tactics in Poland and Spain and worked. That got to their heads and went all out against the world.
They should also have secured Britain/England before invading Russia, legit they went all out.
How would they do that then?
Do you have a plan that could actually work?
When making said plan, please take into consideration that the enemy will counter it
Hitler lost the war on the Eastern Front (and by some reason the Soviet Union wasn't even mentioned). Why there's such a sophisticated analysis about what the allies had? It had little impact on the war.
Thank you for your great video you have answered a lot I was unaware of.
Should have focused on industrial capacity, infrastructure, and full employment in useful tasks. This would be civilian activity that could form the foundation for a rapid military build up and would improve the economic situation. Many civilian projects could have a dual use in mind. More shipbuilding capacity can be used for trade and passenger ships in the short term while creating the possibility for a shift to build more military ships at some point. More high quality road and rail networks can be used for industry as well as enabling more rapid troop movements and logistical support. More airfields might be a bit too obvious given the severe restrictions on aircraft imposed on them but improvements could be made to existing airfields. Hardening of some civilian industry and installation of minor fortifications in and around cities well back from the borders probably could be done without provoking a severe response. This could begin to provide some protection against bombers and invasion.
Another thing!
Germany : (Huff.. Huff..) "Having enemies on both sides sure is hard. We made a big mis-"
Japan : "Let's launch multiple operations on the American Pacific regions! See if they're gonna surrender. Naval superiority goes brrrr"
It was a success against the Russians...
I wonder what would have happened if the soviet union attacked first, effectively making themselves the aggressor.
Afterall Germany's plan was to defeat France first to concentrate on fighting Russia afterwards.
I don't think it would have mattered at that point. Germany had been in an offensive war with the allies since 1939 involving Poland, France and the U.K. along with the colonies. What's to stop Stalin from claiming to be a liberator of Poland and France?
Wonderful presentation! Thank you!
Excellent and Outstanding!!!