Romania is weird. Romania was Germany's most important ally in Europe but also Germany was cool to split 1/3rd of Romania in 1940 with USSR. Romania could have said "hey, we refuse to give up North Transylvania, if you invade us we blow up the oil fields, we lose but take you with us". Or Southern Dobruja, what's up with that? Hitler gave reluctant Bulgaria at the expense of actually useful in the war Romania. Maybe had a grudge for Romania for being Entente in WW1? I'd say top B tier is pretty dope considering they didn't have the great powers' industry. And as part of the Allies were used as the Soviet's spearhead in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
S-Tier: USA, and could even go with Finland and the Yugoslovian "rebels" A-Tier: Pretty much as is, except move Russia down to B-tier and elevate Japan to A-tier due to their early "rapid" conquest of such a large area of the Pacific. The rest... pretty happy with it, although there are a few that I would put into the "? tier" due to either not having a real overall impact. Although, kind of wish that there was mention of the "French Underground", who I would put at a C/D level. Their contributions for intel was amazing, but their lack of centralized focus kind of hurts them.
The USA as a "S-tier" makes FAR more sense when you also take into consideration that ALL of their fighting had to take place "literally in some cases" on the "other side of the world". Outside of Pearl Harbor, no combat took place on US soil (Continental USA that is, outside of a few issues in Alaska), we not only had to "liberate" a lot of countries but also "occupy" areas in the Pacific at the same time, which meant a HUGE drain on available manpower and resources, the entire issue of "lend-lease" PRIOR to the war, and had one of (if not THE) most effective Navy in regard to air-to-air combat or island-hopping support in the Pacific AND being one of the most effective anti-sub navies in the Atlantic. Basically, forget the entire "effectiveness in combat" (I mean, you are talking D-day and Battle of the Bulge ALONE in that regard) just look at the massive amount of LOGISTICS that went into supplying the USA forces as well as the USA allies throughout the war. That alone (logistics) elevates the USA to an A-tier ranking, and THEN you add on the amount of victories and number of places considered "impossible" to overcome that we overcame, the USA gets easily shoved up into the S-tier.
As a dane, Idk what the f people expected us to do. Our country is a glorified sandbank with no natural defenses. At the time we had a population of 3.8 million and a massively scaled down army so as not to provoke a german attack. That said, i respect the f tier. Our resistance was non-existant and we already didn't wanna fight a war with Germany, since 1864 was still such a massive defeat. We had no illusions of standing up to german power.
On the bright side most people don’t harp on Denmark as much also due to your country being a smaller and not as influential compared to other countries. It could be worse, France had no excuse
Greece accomplished the first victory against axis powers also they invade Albania to liberate the Greek populations that live there but they got c and Netherlands get b. Also we couldn't end up like Finland because if we went for peace we would lost territories to Bulgaria and Italy
I also found it weird that he didnt mention the pacific theatre at all when talking about the US performance in the war. I think at the time the US was more concerned with Japan over Germany and spent most of their war effort in the pacific.
Only about 25-30% of US effort was in the Pacific. Some estimates put the value of economic lend lease to the Soviets (steel, grain, trains ect) at more than the cost of the war in the Pacfic.
He said "They pretty much single-handedly dealt with one major front" which definitely sounds like the Pacific theatre to me, followed by "instrumental if not absolutely necessary in dealing with the other major two" which sounds like the western/Italian front and the eastern front.
@@Nutty31313"single handedly dealt with one major front (Pacific) and we're absolutely necessary in the other major two (Europe)" - that's how I understood it
As a Norwegian, we are pissed. No more Skies, Fish or Oil for you Spectrum! But Terry is someone i can agree more on. I would also rank our performance during the 2nd world war in the ''C'' area. I wanna say we where middle ''C''. We had the 4th largest merchant navy, which was crucial for the Lend Lease. Operation Gunnerside as well as the sinking of SF Hydro carrying Heavy water and Donau transporting troops from Norway down towards Europe (and there was alot of them, some 300,000 German troops stationed in Norway) Also handed the Germans their first major defeat Of course with help from Brittan, Franch and Poland, gotta give them some love as well, but they had to pull back, and the German Army said ''Give us the town back, we want the iron'' Also like to pop inn the material damage done during the invasion. 1 Heavy Cruiser, 2 Light Cruiser, 10 Destroyers, 6 U-boars. 2 Torpedo Boats, 15 Light naval units, 21 transport ships and 90-240 Aircrafts, not to bad for a nation not prepared and with old equipment Disclaimer: I might be a bit biased but hey, who is not when talking about their home
One thing people don't take in consideration when talking about the Soviet performance is that the country bordered fucking JAPAN. They had 700K troops in the far east in case of an invasion. These troops were gradually sent to fight Germany when soviet spies gave the confirmation that Japan couldn't attack. And if the Winter War is on the table, you have to also put the Battle of Khalkhin Gol, wich despite not being that huge in size, played a big role by denying Japan's potencial resources in Mongolia.
There's also the fact that had Japan won at Khalkin Gol, the military leadership never pivots to War Plan South, doesn't enter China proper or the Dutch East Indies, and never pisses off the US enough to embargo them, leading further to Pearl Harbor never happening and a more neutral US. From there it's anyone's guess, as Hitler may have declared war on the US anyway given that he wanted to disrupt US supplies to Britain, but on the other hand this leads to a more successful Barbarossa, and the Soviets are largely dismantled, leading to a potential Cold War scenario where Nazi Germany replaces the USSR and Japan replaces China (the ROC, current government in Taiwan, wins the Chinese Civil War without Japanese invasion derailing everything, especially with post-war US support, and is thus the capitalist "post-war Japan" of this scenario). Fascism overall replaces Communism as the idealogical opponent of Democracy. Khalkin Gol is probably the least-discussed (in the West) major pivot point of the entire war.
Belgium broke its alliance with France in response to Germany remilitarizing the Rhineland. That was a colossal mistake on their part as everyone knew neutrality wasn't going to save them this time either. Even if their army wasn't a complete rollover like Denmark, that diplomatic blunder is worthy of F tier. The Netherlands I would probably put in C tier, but being ranked alongside Britain and Australia is rather intriguing as they did work closely alongside the Commonwealth during and after the war. The dutch submarines basically carried the team in convoy harassment before the US finally solved their Mark XIV torpedoes after years of inexcusable behaviour from the ordinance board. The colonies also provided the Allies with aluminium, petroleum and rubber in significant quantities. Dutch pilots would continue to fly with the RAF throughout the war, similar to Polish squadrons. And the resistance movement like in most occupied countries would hide Allied pilots, pass on information about German troops, organize strikes and shelter Jewish victims from persecution. Given the small scale of the country, it did more than could be expected despite a piss poor starting performance by an overwhelmed land army. I don't disagree with Hungary's ranking, just the notion they were forced into the war. Horti was blatantly attempting to profit off of Germany's rise by ingratiating itself so they would support Hungarian territorial expansion against the Slovaks, Romanians and Yugoslavs. Unlike Romania and Croatia, where fascism rose in reaction to being bullied and pressured by other nations and revanchism, Hungarian fascism developed on its own. Despite not having been threatened or taken over by the Soviet Union, they fully comitted to the German invasions, unlike Bulgaria. And all it got them in the end was a bad case of "F*** around and find out" when it turned out Germany wasn't the side to hitch your wagon to.
He should separate the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Yugoslavia lead by Tito. You can’t imagine German need to put 200k man just to fight again the Partisan
By some interpretations, the Winter War was a Finnish victory. Though they had to cede more territory to the Soviets than they initially demanded, accepting that ultimatum would leave them in a less defensible position if the Soviets decided that they want all of Finland after all. Soviets ended up changing their approach during the latter half of the century, but the country remained mostly independent and is now relatively wealthy.
Honestly, I didn't realize how much lend-lease impacted Russia. Even without it, though, the US actual performance was pretty hard to push out of S tier. They took an early blow that should have been disastrous but turned that around incredibly fast and overcame an insanely entrenched Japanese possession of not just their own, but everyone else's colonial possessions with allies who were more focused on another front. And in Europe they just saturated the war in both sheer volume of production and in technology, enabling almost everyone who did well in the war on the Allies side. The only thing really going against the US for S tier is that they had a massive advantage of being the most wealthy industrial nation who got to sit back and mass produce before ever significantly putting their military at risk. It's unquestionable that the US got the most results in the war in the Pacific, and while Russia got the most results in Europe, it paid insanely far more blood for it. I'd be curious to see a well researched "what if the US didn't get involved at all in WW2". Without lend-lease, and without the embargoes against Japan, it's unlikely the US would have gotten directly involved unless someone decided to touch their boats for some reason (yes, Fat Electrician reference). I don't think there's any universe in which our President (even if you swap FDR out for someone else) wouldn't have meddled. His opponent in 1940, Wendell Willkie, was even more in favor of meddling in the war, and Robert Taft, the big non-interventionist of the primary, lost BECAUSE of his stance. The sentiment was against joining the war, but it was also in favor of meddling. But if you did manage to get Taft or someone like him in, would that Axis have survived the war? I'm not convinced they would, to be honest, but there's a slim chance Germany could have gotten access to the oil it needed without lend-lease, allowing it to shore up its gains and stay above water long enough to have a mediated peace rather than abject defeat. And I honestly have no idea how Japan's war would have played out if they could have kept buying oil from the US instead of attacking the US.
During the Continuation War(41-44), Finns kept raiding Soviet convoys and supply dumps along the Northern Karelian routes, getting tons of American lend-lease goods as loot. One interesting thing was that, especially the foodstuff, usually wasn't in all that good condition. Especially with the Tins, you were lucky to get something "edible". If I recall right, some sort of "meat patee" was seen as good stuff and most others just trash. Smokes etc were always a nice treat. At some points, they had so much of that "trash stuff" they had to just start dumping it. Common joke was that they should let the Soviets have the stuff anyway, maybe they'd starve themselves quicker or lose all morale, whichever came first.
I totally understand Finland's high rating. From what they had in terms of manpower and such and the position they were in, they did a tremendous number against the Soviets and should definitely be respected for that. Speaking of the Soviets, I think low B tier is the best they could hope for. Yes they beat back the Germans and were the first to reach Berlin, but only because of the Allies' help and at a ridiculous cost in assets and people. Belgium is not F tier in my opinion, I'd put them in D as well. At least they did a little bit of cool stuff during the war, leading to my favorite Sabaton song "Resist and Bite", and there were countries far worse than them.
@@OsTaPcHiKwithout the existance of the western front and all the assets germany needed to send there instead of being used on the eastern front germany would of rsn over the USSR.
For the Netherlands: They might have lasted for a week only, the Germans did want them in a day, so that objective is a decisive Dutch victory. In fact, all along the frontline, the Germans were initially repelled or pushed back after short losses. They captured many paratroopers when the Germans failed to take out major cities that way. In addition to that, the heavy losses on the German air force caused by the Dutch are said to have attributed to the failure in the Battle of Britain. When occupied, Dutch resistance was incredible and even non resistance inhabitants participated in the only real protest against German occupation in the entire war. As for the Pacific front, they fought hard against the Japanese but eventually lost. However, since the government in exile was still up and running, the Dutch navy was too. Before the Americans finally restored their submarines, the Dutch actually carried the allies in the Pacific, especially with convoys. For both the European front and the Pacific attributions, there are some great videos you could watch. For the Pacific, there is a video from a channel named 'The Front' about the overshadowed Dutch war effort in the Pacific. For the European Front there are videos from a channel named History Hustle for example
honestly america gets high s tier for three reasons first they did most of the fighting to push back japan and ultimately caused their demise. second they supplied massive amounts of equipment to allies and second they were the main forces in d-day invasion of italy and opertaion torch
France and Briton could've easily marched on Berlin at the start of the war as Germany diploid nearly all of it's troops to Poland leaving only 5000 troops to defend the western front
Ok, first off, the politics of France and Britain at the time ensured any attack directly on German soil would cause an uproar against their heads of state. Second, France during this time was plagued by horrible supply in any land they pushed into, as they had built for an entirely deffencive war. France infact had soo horrible recon and messaging systems that the Germans were able to push throw the ardens, WITHOUGHT GETTING CAUGHT FOR MULTIPLE HOURS while the whole opperation could have been destroyed by a few anti tank guns and artillery. Third, the Belgians had mostly dropped official connection with French high command, making any would be offensive maneuvers a disorganized mess.
Now, that's just all of the problems with a French attack, for the Germans however... The main deffencive line in the saarland, was well entrenched with clear air and artillery on the ready. If France had even tried a propper attack, (Not like the French attack of our timeline, everyone knew that was just a diversion.) The Germans would have quickly been able to detect an atack, and get troops onto the Frontline. Now, it's important to say here that Germany had exceptionally good railway and radio networks in their land, ESPECIALLY in the Rhineland where they would have been fighting. The next biggest issue with a French offensive, is how limited their options of where to attack were. The Rhne made the entire southern part of the franco-german boarder impenetrable for the French, and there was no way the Belgians would agree to an attack from their land. The only option was the saarland. A bunker town.
Fun Fact: Even while being absolutely obliterated on all other fronts, Yugoslavia still pushed the Italians back in Albania. And i would say that Titos Partisans deserve to be A tier. Almost as soon as Yugoslavia capitulated, Tito and Draža (and other Chetniks) rose up. And Tito held on the longest. As Spectrum said, Yugoslavia largely liberated itself. The only thing the Soviets did in Yugoslavia, was march into already largely empty Belgrade. Tito was such a menace to Hitler, he had to keep a very large amount of troops in occupied Yugoslavia, just because of him. So that is why, in my opinion, Titos Partisans (and by extension Yugoslavia) deserves A tier.
Romania was weird. Romania was Germany's most important ally in Europe but also Germany was cool to split 1/3rd of Romania in 1940 with USSR. Romania could have said "hey, we refuse to give up North Transylvania, if you invade us we blow up the oil fields, we lose but take you with us". Or Southern Dobruja, what's up with that? Hitler gave reluctant Bulgaria at the expense of actually useful in the war Romania. Maybe had a grudge for Romania for being Entente in WW1? I'd say top B tier is pretty dope considering they didn't have the great powers' industry.
The US provided the soviet union with much more than machines. We're talking hundreds of millions of boots, uniforms, blankets, guns and ammunition and food stores.
Of that stuff that came through Murmansk: Foodstuff was edible if lucky, weapons were hit-or-miss. Ammo was largely un-useable without the weapons (limiting use of both). Smokes and other accessories/knick-knacks were pretty good tho. At least on the account of the stuff the Finns raided from the Soviets in Karelia - which was quite noticeable amount. There was a common joke where they almost wanted to Soviets have the stuff anyway as most of it was pretty much just trash. It really is the machinery, the trucks, the tanks and just the amount of heavy industrial resources sent to USSR that kept them afloat till they managed to start pushing back.
@Makapaa your referring to the standard soviet stores at a different time period that the US was sending items. The food is possible. Anyone who actually served and deployed would know the quality of food and the preservatives required to survive the transit, not to mention a trans- Siberia logistics chain and time to be forward deployed. Russia is famously bad with logistics. I understand though, some people live their lives to be contrarians.
@@corym8613 The only thing that made sense there was the point about perishables going bad. "No shit!" US Tins that were sent and arrived in Northern USSR ports were largely deemed un-usable by the time reached the troops. Dunno whether it was due bad storage during transit or after arriving but that stuff was so rancid that it looked like the USA was trying to sabotage Soviets!
As a Norwegian, i think putting us in D tier is totally fair. Our military was just horribly out of date and unprepared, and pretty much the only major good things we did was sinking the Blucher and handing our merchant fleet to the Allies.
The real problem the Soviets had in the beginning of WW2 was the lack of military expertise! We can not forget that it was just a couple of years prior when the purge of the old tsarist russia had ended and that the bulk of the militarily adept personnel, was either of nobility, or land owners and therfore had either fled the Soviet Union or were victims of the purge. The soviets didn't use human wave tactics because they didn't care, but because their commanders were wholly unqualified! Later, people like Zukov become more prominent through their talent, and we see a rare case of meritocracy play out in the Soviet Union. With Zukov and others taking up the helm, both the tide and the style of the battles change drastically. I wouldn't give so much on the comments of Chrushev, btw. Not much strategical insight to gain from someone who gave himself multiple medals because he felt inferior to Zukov. As a romanian, I have to mention, that if the Soviet Union wouldn't have been communist, anti religion, and had purged up to 50.000 clergyman alone, Romania would have most likely even sided with the Soviets against the Germans. Aside fom that, the only thing that drove Romania against the Soviet Union, was the demand for Bessarabia and Bocovina, but that's not much different from Germany pressuring Romania to give northern Transilvania to Hungary, and southern Dobruja to Bulgaria. Gobels is even quoted that without Antonescu, Germany had no ally in Romania. And even Antonescu was not an german ally by choice but rather by circumstance.
I don’t know enough about tactics to say that the US did badly, but I can buy the idea that we essentially overwhelmed the enemy, and that many other nations helped to beat Germany. The guy should’ve covered the Pacific front more. Many other nations participated in various fronts there, but it was primarily the US that removed Japan from the Pacific itself.
@@kylezdancewicz7346 And on top of that, there’s so much more detail in general to go into. Vietnam 🇻🇳, Burma 🇲🇲, etc. Seriously, you could study WWII your whole life and still not know everything about it.
One doesn’t just not mass produce 145 aircraft carriers, of 28 of them fleet carriers, 11 light carriers, 104 escort carriers, and 2 training freshwater carriers, while also giving away 37 of the escort carriers for free to Britain as Lend Lease, and only joining the war in late 1941 with only 7 fleet carriers and 2 escort carriers and not be put in S tier… Edit: I forgot about the 2 training carriers in the Great Lakes.
As a norwegian c would be ok we got our gold out to pay for our sabotures and the merchant marine who my great grandfather was in, survived 3 sub torpedo attacks.
The big drawback of Soviet (and later Russian) logistics throughout the industrial and modern eras up until today is that they are extremely dependent on rail logistics. They normally can't project power far away from rail hubs and terminals, and thus tend to be slow and methodical when advancing. The reason Lend Lease was so important to them in WWII is that those hundreds of thousands of trucks basically eliminated their one strategic weakness and allowed them to do American-style fast-paced advancement. They probably still push back the Germans without Lend Lease aid, but it would have taken a LOT longer. The resulting Iron Curtain is probably closer to Warsaw than west of Berlin in such a scenario, unless the US also doesn't try to invade France, in which case the border could be further west, but the war contunues to the late 1940s with fewer casualties for US/UK/CAN and more for the Russians. There's also a chance the Cold War doesn't stay cold in such a scenario since there wouldn't even be any baseline goodwill from WWII Lend Lease to keep things diplomatic early on.
Please look in Dutch resistance and actions at the pacific front, the dutch surrendered but never stopped fighting, and the things they did where next level
@@Retr0ofGD The Belgians also surrendered and kept on fighting. The Belgian resistance was just as, if not more successful than the Dutch resistance. The Norwegian resistance outshone them both. The contribution of the Norwegian merchant marine was greater than that of the Netherlands and Belgium. The Dutch performance in the Pacific was sub par (except for the submarine division). So, I think the Dutch and Belgians perfomed no better than the Norwegians.
The way this vid ranked Norway is a joke. The amount of work done by the resistance in terms of sabotaging and the amount of logistics the merchant fleet contributed through Northraship outshines many of the countries ranked above them. Especially if you consider the size of the country in terms of population.
as an American, i think they were S+ on logistics and supply, the Russians would've starved without lend lease, but in the field A- or B+..... the Russians would buildctanks and rifles but the American trucks and spam saved the day..... is that a bad take??
Agree with S tier USA. A lot is made of the enormous USA fleet but in 1942 the Japanese had the more powerful fleet and still got outclassed by the Americans. Sure, it was a bit rough in the beginning (the torpedo thing, Wake island, the messy landing in Guadalcanal) but Nimitz and co. played it smart and taking Guadalcanal instead of just neutralizing its airfield was genius and the beginning of the end for the Japanese. The Japanese were dreaming up all kinds of complicated "victory plans" only to be thwarted by the Americans. Even when they caught the Americans with their pants down (Battle of Samar, one of the most epic naval battles) the Japanese still got beaten.
As far as the US, our forces in the Western front I wouldn't consider that important. On the Eastern front, we basically nuked Japan to end that side of the war so we could back out of deals we made with Russia. So we were important, but what we did BEFORE we joined the war I think was infinitely more important than anything else we did. You take away the aid we were sending, our soldiers fighting under the flags of other nations, and even the mentality we brought when we did join were absolutely huge for the efforts. There are a lot of people who believe the outcome had already been decided by the time we joined, but I don't believe that's true. One fluke on either front and Germany would have been right back in the position of power. Imagine if they had managed to capture Stalin or even if they just landed a few thousand troops in England, the outcome could have been very different. Wars are much harder to win these days bc there are all these international laws that heavily restricts what you're allowed to use. That actually became necessary because of ww2. Everyone was doing absolutely horrendous bs to each other and even their own people. Basically, you had a bunch of heavyweights in there throwing haymakers at each other and all it would have taken is Germany clipping someone for things to turn out very differently. The only way you can be certain you're going to win is if you just end it, now.
i wonder how many troops Germany placed in France just because of the Americans joining idk how much it would help but they could of sent a good chunk of there forces to reinforce the eastern front if they didn't have to worry about a invasion as much
Have it paused at the beginning of USSR. Personally, I would put them slightly below Germany. The reason is that I have seen a different video about Germany's invasion into Russia and that there were multiple armies of hundreds of thousands of men encircled and captured time and time again. Until Stalingrad, Russia really didn't seem to do all that well. Well, that and Russia's experience with Finland.
That stuff about lend lease not being needed for the Soviets is 100% bullshit. If they didn't need those supplies, Britian would not have been running Artic Convoys through almost the entire war shipping American and British supplies to the Soviets at the Arkangel port in the artic sea.
You should totally react to the Disney movie “Victory Through Air Power.” I think it’s available to watch, and it wasn’t until after President Roosevelt saw that movie that we in the US made the commitment to long range bombing.
I want to counter that Axis would have lost anyways without the US intervention. Up to the US getting involved Japan was still running wild in the Pacific and if they never had to fight the US then India would have really been threatened even harder. If Britain had lost India It would have been such a massive blow to them. The Soviets also didn't have to worry about the Japanese invading as once the US got involved the US took Japanese attention and de-fanged them immediately at the battle of Midway. Plus as for Leand-lease, something that isn't thought about. If a country sends you a truck, then you don't need a factory to build that truck and can focus on a tank. Sure only 4% of goods, but when your nation is fully under siege and your three largest cities are besieged, not having to worry about that 4% matters, especially as it allows you to focus on more tanks which tanks are what won the Soviets. Also the US entering really took Italy out of the war as well isolating Germany. I think Italy would have still lost Africa but without the US Italy proper wouldn't have been invaded which wouldn't have pulled German forces to take over when they needed them on the Eastern front. Another impact of the US was the destruction of Germany's UBOAT operations which were impacting British aid to Soviets as well. It's a fun exercise to look at the impact 1 nation getting involved or not in the war can have.
Does it include all the countries that declared war on the Axis in 1945? Like joining a club at the end of the schoolyear just so you can be in the yearbook photo.
The problem I have with USA in S Tier is that this list is about performance not importance. And there is a difference. The US in the early stages of the war performed quite poorly. Given their demilitarisation after WW1 they paied a lot to regain expirience in how to wage and organise for war. And on the Naval side they took a lot of hits before they were able to turn the tide. Also let's not forget that the US took a long time to get involved and actually had phases early on where internal political struggle put into question whether the UK would remain getting aid at all. Overall from pure performance the only S-Tier (and even that only when one takes into account the end of the story) is the USSR. They were basically dealed a knockout punch by the Germans (practically the whole red army was taken out). But they simply refused to surrender. They packed up their whole industry and shipped it several thousand miles to the east, build a new army bigger and stronger and grounded the enemy advandce to a halt at a cost of life that had any of the western allies be faced with it one could make a case their war moral would have been in serious danger. Compared to that the US starting the war as the strongest economy, being practically indipendent from resource shipping and thus remaining the strongest economy in face of a global trade war was very important for the allied cause. But impressive performance wise? Not so much.
Belgium should be ranked in a separate category. They had to stay neutral cuz it was there agreement with the other countries so ofcourse it was free for the taking
Wait so trucks are more important than men now? All respect but would the lend lease have had any effect if the soviets didn’t sacrifice the manpower to actually use the equipment on the frontlines?
Manpower is importance but manpower alone is useless. You can't march hundreds of miles and expected to win a battle if enemy used trucks at the same times. Also what gonna bring all those tanks, artilleries and ammo to the frontline's troops? Supply is much more importance. You can have lower manpower but very good supply force can win against bigger force but crappy supply. USSR might have hold on and beat back German alone but it couldn't has swift counter-attack in our timeline without US lend-lease which included much more than millions of trucks but also radio, cloth, food and high-octane fuel.
@@DOSFS the exact same can apply to equipment. Guns dont shoot themselves nor do trucks drive themselves. Lend lease was important not denying that but i think the soviet sacrifice is at minimum equal to and in my opinion surpasses the importance of the lend lease. As you said yourself the ussr would have eventually pushed back regardless, lend lease just sped up when the inevitable would happen. Either way to me as a British man I will 100% agree America and the USSR both were vital to the war effort i just personally believe the soviets were more vital than the Americans in this (given the fact we were completely fucked before soviet involvement and only survived until soviet involvement because of the RAF and the Royal Navy, also them distracting so much of the German army on the eastern front being the main reason why D-Day and the invasion of Italy were successful.
The food those Soviet troops were eating, the fuel for the planes defending them from the German airforce, the trains that brought them to the front, the tracks those trains ran on, and even the shoes they had on when very often made in the US. It is possible that the Soveits could have won without American aid, but it is also possible the Soveit state would have collapsed in 43 or 44 under massive famine. Keep in mind for the 42 havest the Germans held the majority of the productive africural land.
As a greek a HAVE TO refuse C tier and the lowest i can accept is A. Italy literally came to Metaksas (The Leader of Greece back then) and told him "Give us some strategic land or we will invade at 6am this morning" ,they knew Metaksas would refuse and so did he. Greece couldnt escape it but resisted for 210+ days the Italians and not only he didnt lose but he got North Epirus (South Albania). Greece lost only after Germany attacked(Not instantly thought) and UK actually left Greece to fight both Germany and Italy alone (and because Greece was weakened, Bulgaria attacked later too) and split Greece into 3 occupation zones. Even after Greece was defeated dont forget that Greek fighters was a pain in the ass for the occupiers. On 1941, Greece and UK were the only countries that were still fighting the Axis. So, considering the HUGE gap in power( as was explained before) and the days Greece resisted (more than any country that the axis end up taking completely) its almost insulting to put Greece anywhere below A tier.
@@vloggingwithsam4811 It wasnt Italy that sucked, Greece was just better prepared both militarily and socially (Read about the period of Metaksas(4 August) in Greece (1936-1941) in 4 years he transformed Greece from a weak state to a decent one). Italy wasnt UK or France but still was a super power
@@vloggingwithsam4811 Albania but what are you talking about man, Ethiopia had like 7 tanks and 2 aircrafts and they were still using spears 🤣🤣🤣.After Albania was Greece's turn (they only attacked on France but there was Germany too).
As a Hungarian, I don't understand Hungary's C-Tier. I mean politically it was a clear F-Tier performance, no questions. (Remember, political performance mattered for other countries like Belgium!) Militarily it's also hard to find strong points. Maybe there the C is kind of reasonable, but I think it should be D too to be honest. Crazy losses in the Donbas and oftentimes due to frostbite and hunger. Soldiers did their best, but logistics and strategy was shockingly bad. Overall: D- at best.
Soviets, B+. Due to pre-war actions. The Soviets could have been an S tier, but Stalin's purges of the military destroyed their ability to wage war in an efficient manner. Soldiers can be of the best quality, but if your officer corps can't train them and can't lead them competently, their lives get expended unnecessarily.
oh yeah , tell me more about those pushovers like : bagramian , malinovsky , tolbukhin , vasilievsky , chuikov , voronov , rotsmistrov , konev , zhukov , vatutin , sokolosvsky and so on
B tier seems perhaps a bit high for the Netherlands but the Dutch inflicted great damage to the Kurt Student's elite paratroopers and the subs in Indonesia sank a lot of Japanese ships while the Americans were still figuring out what was wrong with their torpedoes. Helfrich was nicknamed "Ship a Day Helfrich" for a reason 😁 It's a pity the whole ABDA thing was such a mess. There were definitely opportunities to inflict more damage to the Japanese. After all : Indonesia was a primary target to the Japanese for its resources (Pearl Harbor wasn't just to troll the Americans, it was to keep the American fleet from intervening getting the oil rich East Indies). Belgium's tier might seem a bit harsh to me. Sure, fort Eben Emael fell to a handful of German elites with glider planes and not allowing their allies on their soil until the Germans actually invaded seems pretty dumb but in the end it didn't really matter. The Germans intended the BEF and the French to move into Belgium so that Guderian and Rommel could punch into France with their Panzer divisions.
Belgium’s Asian Navy carried the country to higher tiers. They held it down while the US has to rebuild the Pearl Harbor losses… they scarified many ships and captains doing it… but they also turned back Japan from Australia until the US got there.
"The Balkan were such a mess" I believe progress works differently in different contexts - for different populations. I feel super bad for 'regions' like this because it's like (and this simplifies, if not oversimplifies) "one day they get tested as if they're at the same level as is being tested", when they may well have a different specialist area of focus
Finland soloed one of the big bosses of WW2 and humiliated them. USSR wasn't even having to split focus on other fronts and Finland was barely receiving foreign support. It was a toe-to-toe brawl and the backwoods skiiers with stolen guns beat the horde so badly, the Soviets had to reorganize their entire military thought process. If you just looked at the numbers and had to guess how things would have gone, no amount of optimism would have come up with a better result. Anything less than A tier is madness.
I would have put the USSR in C- tier just due to the unpreparedness of them when Germany was clearly going to invade, the Winter War, and the casualties they suffered
Copied from your part 1 vid: USA - S tier. Spent by far the least amount of time retreating/losing/defending out of all the major combatants. Suffered very few outright defeats (Philippines in early 1942 probably being the worst) and never really had to go back to the drawing board strategically because the initial plans in both Europe & the Pacific were similar to the ones they successfully prosecuted all the way until the end. Started the war as an isolationist nation reeling from the Depression with a tiny army, ended the war as arguably the most powerful, wealthiest, and most influential nation in human history. All at the cost of only ~400,000 deaths. I swear I’m not one of those “if it weren’t for us you’d all be speaking German now!” dorks, but it’s hard for me to imagine America performing much better than they did. So I don’t see any reason to give the US less than top billing. USSR - A tier. Went from a clumsy regional power of the Winter War/early Barbarossa era to a military juggernaut the likes of which the world had never seen, and one of two superpowers competing for global hegemony at the end. However, the sheer scale of their losses early on keeps them out of top tier. Britain - B tier. Mixed bag. Lots of defeats at first, lots of victories later. Played a smaller and smaller role as the war went on as the US came into its own as the senior parter in the western coalition. Entered the war as an empire on which the Sun never set and ended it as America’s sidekick that was about to lose most of its overseas territories. Still, they won the war. Germany - C tier. Not terrible but supremely overrated. Yes they took on the whole world at once but that makes them morons, not badasses. They won a lot at first, mainly against tiny nations that couldn’t stand up for themselves. Then got absolutely flattened later on. Effective soldiers + lots of early victories are balanced out by psychotic, arrogant high level leadership. Entered the war as a seriously formidable regional power, briefly attained superpower status, then ended the war as an occupied pile of rubble that was split in half for 50 years and despised by the world. Japan - D tier. Similarly deranged & arrogant high level leadership. Early victories were attributable to speed and surprise rather than power and skill. Only took the US 7 months after Pearl Harbor to turn the tide at Midway. Then Japan proceeded to lose literally every single major battle against the US on land, sea, and air. Their losses were usually overwhelming too, with staggering casualty ratios compared to the US and entire garrisons wiped out to the last man. Bogged down in China, whipped in Burma, bulldozed by the Soviets in Manchuria, navy at the bottom of the sea, starving/bombed out population, hardly a building left standing after the war that was more than 2 stories tall. Not much to praise here. But enough early victories to keep them out of F tier. France + Italy - F tier. Constant losses/pathetic performance all around by both countries. No explanation needed.
This comment made me think. I wonder if Japan's huge casualty ratios is one of the reasons why it took them so long to surrender. They didn't have nearly as many men returning to the home islands disabled or men being disbursed to different units after theirs was destroyed and spreading word at the troop level. Would it have made them give up earlier? I'm not sure as the military was running the government, but it might have hurt the home front enough to where the emperor might have felt necessary to move earlier.
- I would not even put Free France as D as that's just too great for what they did. In fact, Free France didn't even do much except Bir Hakiem and then inciting the French Partisans to backstab the Germans during D-Day and even then, it's the general allied powers that liberated France. France in general gets an F. They had all the intel about a new mobile war since the Spanish Civil War and did not capitalize on it. They could have declared war earlier as they lost authority in the Rhineland but they didn't. They could have pushed the Saar Offensive quicker and faster with tanks and at least 25 more divisions than the Germans who only had 22 divisions and no tanks but.. They didn't. They could have modernized but again, they didn't despite having way more manufacturing prowess than the Germans. France in general was playing checkers whilst the Germans were playing 4D Star Wars. It's just no competition and how the French dealt with the entire fucking debacle politically with Britain before the fall of Poland was appalling and hasten the downfall of their own nation. If I can give a F+++++, I fucking would. - No, again, land lease DID help the Soviets immensely but it's just that typical political bullshit downplayed the assistance and in fact boosted up Soviet's self-reliance way too much. When the Germans started Op Barbarossa, the VVS (Soviet Air Force) was completely decimated and any modern aircraft they had were gone in just 3hrs with over 1000+ planes destroyed. What was even funnier is that the aircrafts that were deemed "new" were all pieces of junks that can't even fight the Luftwaffe properly with the useless planes like the LaGg-3 and the MiG-3 which were horrid aircrafts. The US sent tons of P-40 and P-39s over to the USSR and suddenly the air war flipped and these planes became a stopgap and multiple ace breeding aircraft till the more superior Yak-3 came along and these P-40s and P-39s held the line for over 2 years. Impressive. And also, the last video, I also said that the US sent tons of trucks to the USSR which eventually help in keeping Leningrad alive thru the whole "Highway of Life" system when Lake Ladoga freezes over and they used it as a supply line to the city so yes, the land lease helped the Soviets alot more than they really wanna say. THAT BEING SAID, once the Soviets stabilized the lines again by 1942 and moved their production lines beyond the Urals, their quantity got better and they started to push the Germans back now with more officers that had survived the purge like Vatutin gaining more experience and could rile up a better battle plan. Things swiftly switched to the Russian initiative and KOed the Germans out of their front gates so having them at low A- seems wrong. Sure, 1941 wasn't their best year but they bounced back quite hard even before the US had their hands in the conflict so I'll say that A, yes. Low A, no. - Putting Finland above the Germans and Soviet is such a slap in the face. I like what Finland did but the Finnish did not even achieve much in the greater scope of WWII like what China did. Finland did well in putting their foot on what they want and that's independence and it's own land which, they did. Sure they prevented the Soviets from swallowing up their lands during the Winter War and then pushed the Soviets back towards Leningrad only for them to siege it together with the Germans (Again, without Germany's invasion, they would not be able to) and then got the narrative flipped when they agreed to a peace with the Soviets if they could get the Germans off their lands and they did with the Lapland War but Finnish contribution ended like that. I like Finnish tenacity but giving them A is waaay too high. B+ at max imo. Impressive but not "WOW HOLY SHIT EARTH SHATTERING MILLION KILLING" moment. - Naw Belgium deserves the fucking F, F for "FUCKING FAILURE". When the French made the Maginot Line, the plan was to cut into Belgium or at least to the border of Belgium and France but when the French ministry petitioned it up to Leopold III and he rejected it citing that he did not want the French to repeat WWI again on their soil and also denied the French to build it on the borders between them which was a catastrophic mistake. Let's also not forget that he capitulated the whole country without telling his council that he's doing so to the Germans and when he was finally free and returned to Belgium, he nearly cost a civil war due to the disdain he had gotten for selling his country out. F tier more than deserving for Belgium for being a twat. - Guy's REALLY tripping putting Netherlands that high. The Dutch East Indies did put up a strong fight against the Japanese but it also crashed hard. Even B tier might be a stretch for them. C- imo. - Patton? OVERRATED?! Guy knows nothing! Patton was overrated for a god damn reason. The Americans were in a mess when they landed in Tunisia and they overestimated their own prowess against a battle-hardened Afrika Corp who had been fighting in Egypt for almost a year before they even went in and the whole American II Corp were nearly decimated. Patton went in, stomped out the trash and then slammed Rommel out of Tunisia once and for all whilst getting his son-in-law back from German hands. Also, he did what the OSS and Eisenhower wanted him to do with Fortitude flawlessly by acting as if he was already out of commission right before D-Day. His push into France and deep into Germany was actually pretty solid if the supply lines would just keep up with him. Patton's overrated my ass.. He's overrated because he's good. If he's not good, why is he lauded rather than still being hated by people unlike Bernard Montgomery for his handling of Op Market Garden?
Putting the Netherlands in b tear surprises me. I would have thought Belgium held on better then we have, even if it where the bombardments that forced us to capitulate.
I’d assume post-occupation contributions may have been the deciding factor. The Dutch government in exile still had a decent naval presence they could use to help Britain and Australian forces. Belgium had the Congolese who remained loyal to them, but you could easily count them as their own military rather than Belgium’s
The Dutch resistance did many things to just make the German life hell, working with English pilots, operation holland, spywork, hiding pilots and Jews, copying food vouchers, murdering and stealing, and also in the Dutch indies, we where a real pain for Japan, ever heard the story about the Dutch ship tot hided as an island to get back to American harbors? Als out subs where awesome
The thing make Soviet not S tier is they still seeing Germany as a friend, in October 1940, they still ask to join Axis lmao. If they well prepare, i believe the casuaties will not that bad.
They never asked to join Axis, this is total BS. Both Germany and USSR knew that this non-agression pact wasn't gonna last. The thing is, the soviets expected the invasion a year later... it happened too soon.
I seen video before and really disagree with author in the begining about major powers Like ,US only S tier country ,sounds like clasik joke about americans being too proud about themselfes But then i overthink a bit and will to correct myself If we talking about like "pure points only" test ,then yeah i kinda agree that US overkills category But if we talking about actuall perfomace, like big picture and thinking about situation ,than i would say S tier is US, UK , USSR, Germany without a doubt Us ,despite all that was said ,i would describe thia place like ,"good use of time and place" they didnt go to war with other world (even Soviets entered earlier) ,and even when they did it wasnt fight for their territory ,and they use it for maximum ,like even Perl Harbour didnt do anything crusial to them in the end Its mid S tier UK : thats for me ,most arguable country ,like low S tier, but in the end its them who controlled so many parts of the world and thst stuff ,whp fight everywhere They can do better if early war loses from allies side is common, things like Itally invasion ,was kinda not really good and if churchill agreed to Overlord plan earlier ,it may even affect post war world So yeah for me lowest S tier Soviets: big winner witout a doubt, and here is talks more about what they did wrong ,kinda strange for me ,but okay, lets see what we got here Casulties, again ,why we do consider it as a minus? Everyone have casulties ,and its only natural that you have so big when most of you country occupied and germans litterally doing genocide I mean, only really stupid people will think that these cas is result of "suiside" attack Lend lease, i didnt get this point as well, why when we talking about soviets minuses we taking aid from allies like minus? Its okay to minus country who didnt calculate theit industry and still go to war ,like japan, for them ,indusrty talks can be a minus, but FOR SOVIETS? Maybe someone forgot ,but they was DEFENDING themselfes and with all that happened how they overcome their loses ans all definetly was a plus And lend lease? I agrre that it is big + for US ,without a doubt, but - for soviets? Dont make me laugh In the end ,i would say mid S tier along side with US Germany, finally , and for me they as ,BIG BAD EVIL GUY ,who conquered so many is defintly HIG....naaaah, guys cmon ,they do so much mistakes ,and their nazi policy, and oersonal gitler shit, they get so much, from rearanment from conquering ,if it was German Empire , it may even ended in third Global power in Cold war ,but that happened ,allready happened And yeah, no High S tier ,cause noone ideal and all that stuff
USSR gets a C to B at best. They just brute forced the war throwing bodys at the problem and could only do so with signifigant foreign aid. The only reason they could do what they did was the resources they had and nothing to do with their actual ability or skill.
That's not what Spectrum said. He pointed out that it was a huge factor in their victory and put them in A. Also we would not have won our revolutionary war without France so not a good analogy
USSR should be B-tier AT BEST! Let's ignore the land-lease issue.... you are talking about their entire army being pushed back to the outskirts of Moscow, having an "edge" due to the combination of a HARSH winter, AND the German troops shifting their focus over to the Odesa oil fields more than direct movement towards Moscow and the southern areas around Moscow, massive loss of military leadership due to Stalin's own "purges" AND the issue of basically sending troops into combat (specifically during the Stallingrad area) without materials to fight, basically tossing men into the meat-grinder by having 1 carry a rifle while another carried the "spare ammo" .... and standing orders to SHOOT their own troops if they started to fall back (retreat). Those are MASSIVE failures as a military, and the only reason they get elevated OUT of C-tier or less, is due to the fact that the winter halted the German army far more than the Russians did, and that halt allowed them to move the men/material around .... AND they didn't actually start to "push back" against Germany on an "effective level" until AFTER the USA got involved, resulting in the Germans having to focus far more on their control over Western Europe, Southern Europe (Italy) AND in Africa. Yes, the USSR eventually won... but on a pure "How effective was the military" question, they were MID-range at best, meaning B-tier at the HIGHEST possible position.
oh no, no , no , no , no , no This guy literaly bases his knowledge about the eastern front on enemy at the gates. And i thought the level of ignorance in this comment section was bad enough, this makes it even worse.
@@mariosarrionandia1972 -- F! Enemy at the Gates, everything that I posted about the USSR doing is actually from their OWN RECORDS of messages to each other ORDERING the things I posted to be DONE by their commanders. I am using the USSR's OWN RECORDS to show how horrible their military was. And I never even mentioned the fact that their commanding officers STILL believed that "horse back Calvary" would be effective enough to handle "tank led assaults". Seriously, when you look over all the available historical evidence of what the USSR leadership (both political and military) actually DID to their own forces in WW2, it is shocking that the Germans DIDN'T take over Moscow before the tide turned on them. And that was MOSTLY due to Hitler's refusal to allow the German forces to have the material they needed, time to regroup for additional pushes OR the ability to co-ordinate with different forces (Normal German forces and SS forces) as a more effective fighting force. In short, the ONLY reason that the Russians were able to prevent the capture of Moscow was due to GERMANY'S own conflicting efforts, not Russia's efforts.
@@herrzimm DP-27 production (until early 50s , production began in late 20s) 800.000 PPSH-41 production (41 to 47) 6 million PPSH-43 (1943-1944) 2 million SVT-40 ( 1941-1945) 1'5 million mossin nagant (1941-1945) 20 MILLION (not including pre ww2 production , wich was around ANOTHER 20 MILLION) So , do i have to say anithing else? from all of the problems the red army had , lack of equipment wasnt one of those .
@@lollofixxi2216they were well equipped, well motivated and had a plan. That's good. D-Day and the invasion of Sicily weren't that easy to pull off. Half of the Axis troops didn't even communicate with each other and only wanted to go home
i can't agree with france in D, i can understand why, but if u separate france and vichy governement, u also have to talk about the free france don't u?
De Gaulle fought two battles with the Germans and then was made a cabinet member and was SENT to London by the French president. How is that "bailing on your country"?
D tier for france is too harsh They were involved in the first allied victorie at Narvik They save the BEF at Dunkirk Destroyed more than half of the German air force plane (wich definitely helped for the batle of Britain) Held back Rommel in the desert at 1vs10 to buy time to the allies to strengthen their defense for El alamein Almost half of the legendary SAS were composed of French In Normandy the 2nd Armored Division is the spearhead of the Allies who also captured Hitler's secondary residence his eagle nest in Berchtesgaden
You don't speak about the sacrifice of dunkerque france army saves the british army without this sacrifice no one could know if uk could hold the war waiting for america.
i would personally drop america down to mid A tier at best, they were perfectly placed as a nation geographically to avoid a land based assault on home territory, they failed to recognise the japanese threat in the pacific until it was too late and they were attacked at pearl harbour. While they did majoritally help liberate the pacific islands and the phillipines they did not get overly involved with mainland asias war. Leaving china/india to deal with the majority of Japans forces. In the western front they helped facilitate D-day and italian invasions, but even with the majority of the Axis forces in the east dealing with the soviets the Allied forces in the west failed to push through as quickly as they thought they would. My biggest issue would be the reasons they used the nukes and why they decided to firebomb entire wooden towns/cities in japan targetting civiliian populations deliberately. Do no get me wrong their lendlease and production is a clear S tier Naval forces would also be high A/low S as well, they lost some major battles along the way in the pacific which severely hurt the Marines supply who were island hopping along the way. Land forces would be B in my opinion though while they had a few noteable instances of great performance the over all push was stalled in italy and the airborne invasion of normandy while successful was a shambles in execution. (The less said about market garden the better). The marines in the pacific front were a stand out performer. Air forces would be the only one where i couldnt put a solid placing, i'm thinking A/B but would be open to discussion on all of it. Mainly for the targetting of civilians TH-cam comments are always hard to get all things across without missing points. Love your videos Mr Terry :)
Soviets A-Tier? Way too high. If it was only Germany vs. Russia than Germany had easily won. Your 'that was only political' that they admitted that without help they lost is pointless, because there was no real reason at that time they made the statements. And lets not forget: they had not just help from the Allies but in difference to Germany they basically ONLY had to fight for themself while Germany had to fight on much more fronts (and many troups were bound due to other reasons) etc. - and also againt the Allies directly (which also helped Russia additionally). Your entire view on this matter is quite obscure. They basically had always greater numbers but lost many times. And if you talk about scale (like with Finland) than its even far worse. Imagine Russia was Poland. Does here really anyone think that they were better than what Poland did? Or exchange them with other countries and compare. No, even B was way to high!
B tier for me just cuz the entire chain of command was messed up in USSR including stalin until 1943 start or 42 end, they showed rlly good strategy in the 2nd half off ww2 however and were also more advanced, although many soviets died that shows that the germans were on top when it came to defense.
On D-Day. US Released some of their their tanks too early and they sunk in the water and were not useable and thus mad their landing more difficult and yet they are somehow the old S Tier? riiiiight....Not suggesting they should be way down the list or anything but for idiotic mistakes like that you'd think it would deduct enough points to be A tier.
I really dont get , why eveyone mentioning soviets casulties as smt bad that SOVIETS DID ,you know what most of this casulties was non soldiers and was caused by german occupation, right?
The soviets held Moscow before ANY American supplies got to them. If they can do that they would win regardless. Ofc it would be longer, and potentially more casualties. USA deserve S teir. But USSR deserve top spot
Talks about the soviets in ww2: Doesnt mention a single one of their operations. Talks only about lend lease Ignores the context (de-stalinization) of the quotes he provides. Puts the USSR below the country it defeated. Flawless logic 😂
To be fair winning or losing doesn't always mean you have been performing better or worse. Finland might be a good example as it performed well versus the Sovjets but yeah... Like if you win a war but you lost so many troops it cripples your future (like what Russia might be doing now, if they would win) is it really a good performance in the end?
@@NephritduGrey I see where you are coming , BUT. Those 2 countries were peers in military capabilities , somewhat. They faced eachother in a total war ( it was actualy an anihilation war for the soviets , since , in the case they wouldve lost , they wouldve been all wiped out) WW2 on the eastern front its realy unique in the sense that it was fought to the very end , with the n@zi leadership dead by its conclusion. That didnt happen in ww1 , the franco prussian war , the american civil war , and not even in the war in the pacific. So , in short , the soviets won the most bloody , terrible war in history which only ended with the complete and utter destruction of their enemies. As mentioned , those 2 countries were both developed countries with some kind of parity in military terms , one country , germany, had more material resources , a society with higher education standards and by the point in which it invaded the ussr , had the combined resources of almost all of europe. The other nation, the ussr , had just at best a 2 to 1 manpower advantage ( if you only count germany) , and they took the right political decisions to win the war , like mobilizing the entire country for total war from day one. On the other hand , germany would take similar policies only in early 1943. So yeah , in short , the USSR played its cards really well , germany? not so much , a great start , but it wasnt enough with that. Thanks for your answer!
@@mariosarrionandia1972 Yeah, but it's also not a have the Soviets been better than Germany list, but more than that. That said without foreign aid even the USSR might have gone down a different route. Didn't Stalin refuse to leave Moscow? And how many tanks have been defending it have been of foreign build? "Britain was quick to provide materiel aid to the USSR beginning in August (1941) - including tanks and aircraft - in order to try to keep her new ally in the war against the Axis powers." Oh, on the other hand what if Italy didn't suck in their campaigns and Germany would have invaded earlier? Anyway... each side made mistakes (all war parties) and for some it was costlier than to others. Like how Japan screwed itself over by attacking Pearl Harbour. How France screwed itself over by a military thinking 1 war behind. How Germany screwed itself over by a silly moustache man (and chewing off more than it can eat) How the leadership of the USSR might have changed, but who knows what might have happened in that case. etc. etc. Though overall it's a better outcome in reality than could be the alternatives. Though the other way around works too, as with everything really.
@@NephritduGreycorrect information about Russian losses at Ukraine is absent, because Ukraine and westies data is totally biased. P.S.I could say same thing about russian data about elves losses, anyway .
the guy who made the original video has a clear anti-communist view, so he undervalued the USSR and the chinese communist party in the first video. His judgement of these two sides is not valuable at all.
I don't think it was the Soviet Union, nor the allied Lend Lease that won the war on the Eastern Front. It was the indomitable spirit of the Russian people defending the Rodina against Aggressors that won the war. In my own analysis, had no Western contributions on any battlefield been existing, WWII would have extended deep into the 1950s, but Russia would have beaten Germany in the end.
Soviet Union is clearly an S tier nation imo. The americans had the best geography so arguing that america fed them with machines is expectable. Soviet union put the massive amounts of men and their anger against the germans and the us provided some of the machines (still not all of them). If any of these factors was not present then the war could have taken a very different turn. So I think if the one supplying the machines is S tier so should be the one who provides the men. Also the americans when they first encountered the germans did not fair much better (Casserine Pass) and they were facing a depleted AfrikaKorps not the juggernaut of 1941 wermacht. That is also my argument for Germany in S tier. One on one and even undersupplied or outnumbered they could pack a real punch and the fact that they fought pretty much solo on both eastern and western and african front for almost 6 years (sorry italy but though your men were brave your generals were fools and your equipment...well tereible)
The problem is the fact that the ussr had a massive amount of manpower and didn't do as much as the USA shows how weak their nation was when an "unexpected" war happened
@@NapoleanBlown-aparte Lend lease only began arriving in a decent amount by late 1943 , by wich point , germany was strategicaly defeated on the eastern front. The lend lease is underapreciated by modern russian authors to the same level as it is overvalued in some western authors
@@j._blitz. The soviet union had only a 2 to 1 advantage in manpower over germany on paper . By late 1942 1 third of the soviet population was under german occupation , so they barely had a 1'5 to 1 advantage over germany ( im not counting german allies , because in that case , it is the soviet union the country with a smaller manpower pool) The only advantage the soviets had over germany was manpower ( steel , coal and rare materials production in germany was 3 times larger even in 1944 , and look how well they used that advantage) , they used it properly and were able to field an incredibly strong and modern army , wich by 1944 , even after the disasters in 1941 , was the most powerful army in the world
So Finland played a more important role than Germany, Britain and Japan? Say no to drugs! At the start of the video, he said he's taking into account the production and overall size of the military. Then he proceeds to forget all that. Why make the rules if you're not going to stick to them? The proceeds to go on how significant supplying Russia was, without any mention of who was responsible for getting the shipments there. Did the Tirpitz, the most dangerous ship in Europe, sink itself? Not only did the British supply the Soviets with the tanks and planes they needed, they also defeated the Kriegsmarine and were the ones responsible to escort the supplies through the Baltic. As for Patton, he wasn't just overrated, he was a danger to his own men. He had no regard for them at all. If not for Monty at the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans would have broken through and would have surrounded and killed many Americans. Monty saw what the Germans were trying to do, and saved many American lives. Due to having an understanding of strategy, which is something Pattern clearly did not. D-Day was a British operation. Seeing how useless the Americans were at landing in Normandy and their equally poor performance shortly after, saying the British and Canadians weren't capable of invading France without the Americans, shows a distinct lack of knowledge on the subject.
Let's see your tier lists!
Romania is weird. Romania was Germany's most important ally in Europe but also Germany was cool to split 1/3rd of Romania in 1940 with USSR. Romania could have said "hey, we refuse to give up North Transylvania, if you invade us we blow up the oil fields, we lose but take you with us". Or Southern Dobruja, what's up with that? Hitler gave reluctant Bulgaria at the expense of actually useful in the war Romania. Maybe had a grudge for Romania for being Entente in WW1? I'd say top B tier is pretty dope considering they didn't have the great powers' industry. And as part of the Allies were used as the Soviet's spearhead in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
Love your videos!💚
S-Tier: USA, and could even go with Finland and the Yugoslovian "rebels"
A-Tier: Pretty much as is, except move Russia down to B-tier and elevate Japan to A-tier due to their early "rapid" conquest of such a large area of the Pacific.
The rest... pretty happy with it, although there are a few that I would put into the "? tier" due to either not having a real overall impact. Although, kind of wish that there was mention of the "French Underground", who I would put at a C/D level. Their contributions for intel was amazing, but their lack of centralized focus kind of hurts them.
Go Watch Zoomer Historian
@@EmaLopez-wj5is looooooool
The USA as a "S-tier" makes FAR more sense when you also take into consideration that ALL of their fighting had to take place "literally in some cases" on the "other side of the world". Outside of Pearl Harbor, no combat took place on US soil (Continental USA that is, outside of a few issues in Alaska), we not only had to "liberate" a lot of countries but also "occupy" areas in the Pacific at the same time, which meant a HUGE drain on available manpower and resources, the entire issue of "lend-lease" PRIOR to the war, and had one of (if not THE) most effective Navy in regard to air-to-air combat or island-hopping support in the Pacific AND being one of the most effective anti-sub navies in the Atlantic.
Basically, forget the entire "effectiveness in combat" (I mean, you are talking D-day and Battle of the Bulge ALONE in that regard) just look at the massive amount of LOGISTICS that went into supplying the USA forces as well as the USA allies throughout the war. That alone (logistics) elevates the USA to an A-tier ranking, and THEN you add on the amount of victories and number of places considered "impossible" to overcome that we overcame, the USA gets easily shoved up into the S-tier.
As a dane, Idk what the f people expected us to do. Our country is a glorified sandbank with no natural defenses. At the time we had a population of 3.8 million and a massively scaled down army so as not to provoke a german attack. That said, i respect the f tier. Our resistance was non-existant and we already didn't wanna fight a war with Germany, since 1864 was still such a massive defeat. We had no illusions of standing up to german power.
Glorified sandbank😂😂😂
On the bright side most people don’t harp on Denmark as much also due to your country being a smaller and not as influential compared to other countries. It could be worse, France had no excuse
Greece accomplished the first victory against axis powers also they invade Albania to liberate the Greek populations that live there but they got c and Netherlands get b. Also we couldn't end up like Finland because if we went for peace we would lost territories to Bulgaria and Italy
Aldo we didn't just ask the British for help. We asked them to send something when we knew the germans were going to invade.
I also found it weird that he didnt mention the pacific theatre at all when talking about the US performance in the war. I think at the time the US was more concerned with Japan over Germany and spent most of their war effort in the pacific.
Germany didn't pose much of a threat to America unlike Japan.
Only about 25-30% of US effort was in the Pacific. Some estimates put the value of economic lend lease to the Soviets (steel, grain, trains ect) at more than the cost of the war in the Pacfic.
He said "They pretty much single-handedly dealt with one major front" which definitely sounds like the Pacific theatre to me, followed by "instrumental if not absolutely necessary in dealing with the other major two" which sounds like the western/Italian front and the eastern front.
@@Nutty31313"single handedly dealt with one major front (Pacific) and we're absolutely necessary in the other major two (Europe)" - that's how I understood it
As a Norwegian, we are pissed. No more Skies, Fish or Oil for you Spectrum!
But Terry is someone i can agree more on. I would also rank our performance during the 2nd world war in the ''C'' area. I wanna say we where middle ''C''. We had the 4th largest merchant navy, which was crucial for the Lend Lease. Operation Gunnerside as well as the sinking of SF Hydro carrying Heavy water and Donau transporting troops from Norway down towards Europe (and there was alot of them, some 300,000 German troops stationed in Norway)
Also handed the Germans their first major defeat Of course with help from Brittan, Franch and Poland, gotta give them some love as well, but they had to pull back, and the German Army said ''Give us the town back, we want the iron''
Also like to pop inn the material damage done during the invasion. 1 Heavy Cruiser, 2 Light Cruiser, 10 Destroyers, 6 U-boars. 2 Torpedo Boats, 15 Light naval units, 21 transport ships and 90-240 Aircrafts, not to bad for a nation not prepared and with old equipment
Disclaimer: I might be a bit biased but hey, who is not when talking about their home
US and Luxembourg get S++++++
Absolutely
One thing people don't take in consideration when talking about the Soviet performance is that the country bordered fucking JAPAN. They had 700K troops in the far east in case of an invasion. These troops were gradually sent to fight Germany when soviet spies gave the confirmation that Japan couldn't attack. And if the Winter War is on the table, you have to also put the Battle of Khalkhin Gol, wich despite not being that huge in size, played a big role by denying Japan's potencial resources in Mongolia.
There's also the fact that had Japan won at Khalkin Gol, the military leadership never pivots to War Plan South, doesn't enter China proper or the Dutch East Indies, and never pisses off the US enough to embargo them, leading further to Pearl Harbor never happening and a more neutral US. From there it's anyone's guess, as Hitler may have declared war on the US anyway given that he wanted to disrupt US supplies to Britain, but on the other hand this leads to a more successful Barbarossa, and the Soviets are largely dismantled, leading to a potential Cold War scenario where Nazi Germany replaces the USSR and Japan replaces China (the ROC, current government in Taiwan, wins the Chinese Civil War without Japanese invasion derailing everything, especially with post-war US support, and is thus the capitalist "post-war Japan" of this scenario). Fascism overall replaces Communism as the idealogical opponent of Democracy.
Khalkin Gol is probably the least-discussed (in the West) major pivot point of the entire war.
Belgium broke its alliance with France in response to Germany remilitarizing the Rhineland. That was a colossal mistake on their part as everyone knew neutrality wasn't going to save them this time either. Even if their army wasn't a complete rollover like Denmark, that diplomatic blunder is worthy of F tier.
The Netherlands I would probably put in C tier, but being ranked alongside Britain and Australia is rather intriguing as they did work closely alongside the Commonwealth during and after the war. The dutch submarines basically carried the team in convoy harassment before the US finally solved their Mark XIV torpedoes after years of inexcusable behaviour from the ordinance board. The colonies also provided the Allies with aluminium, petroleum and rubber in significant quantities. Dutch pilots would continue to fly with the RAF throughout the war, similar to Polish squadrons. And the resistance movement like in most occupied countries would hide Allied pilots, pass on information about German troops, organize strikes and shelter Jewish victims from persecution. Given the small scale of the country, it did more than could be expected despite a piss poor starting performance by an overwhelmed land army.
I don't disagree with Hungary's ranking, just the notion they were forced into the war. Horti was blatantly attempting to profit off of Germany's rise by ingratiating itself so they would support Hungarian territorial expansion against the Slovaks, Romanians and Yugoslavs. Unlike Romania and Croatia, where fascism rose in reaction to being bullied and pressured by other nations and revanchism, Hungarian fascism developed on its own. Despite not having been threatened or taken over by the Soviet Union, they fully comitted to the German invasions, unlike Bulgaria. And all it got them in the end was a bad case of "F*** around and find out" when it turned out Germany wasn't the side to hitch your wagon to.
Belgium D tier, not F tier.
Netherlands C +
Poland B -
Hungary C -
Norway C
Italy D + maybe
Bulgarians
@Smokey348
No no, singlehandedly causes the fall of your great power ally is definitely deserving of F
Congrats Leopold! You done did goof up
He should separate the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and Yugoslavia lead by Tito.
You can’t imagine German need to put 200k man just to fight again the Partisan
By some interpretations, the Winter War was a Finnish victory. Though they had to cede more territory to the Soviets than they initially demanded, accepting that ultimatum would leave them in a less defensible position if the Soviets decided that they want all of Finland after all. Soviets ended up changing their approach during the latter half of the century, but the country remained mostly independent and is now relatively wealthy.
Honestly, I didn't realize how much lend-lease impacted Russia. Even without it, though, the US actual performance was pretty hard to push out of S tier. They took an early blow that should have been disastrous but turned that around incredibly fast and overcame an insanely entrenched Japanese possession of not just their own, but everyone else's colonial possessions with allies who were more focused on another front. And in Europe they just saturated the war in both sheer volume of production and in technology, enabling almost everyone who did well in the war on the Allies side. The only thing really going against the US for S tier is that they had a massive advantage of being the most wealthy industrial nation who got to sit back and mass produce before ever significantly putting their military at risk. It's unquestionable that the US got the most results in the war in the Pacific, and while Russia got the most results in Europe, it paid insanely far more blood for it.
I'd be curious to see a well researched "what if the US didn't get involved at all in WW2". Without lend-lease, and without the embargoes against Japan, it's unlikely the US would have gotten directly involved unless someone decided to touch their boats for some reason (yes, Fat Electrician reference). I don't think there's any universe in which our President (even if you swap FDR out for someone else) wouldn't have meddled. His opponent in 1940, Wendell Willkie, was even more in favor of meddling in the war, and Robert Taft, the big non-interventionist of the primary, lost BECAUSE of his stance. The sentiment was against joining the war, but it was also in favor of meddling. But if you did manage to get Taft or someone like him in, would that Axis have survived the war? I'm not convinced they would, to be honest, but there's a slim chance Germany could have gotten access to the oil it needed without lend-lease, allowing it to shore up its gains and stay above water long enough to have a mediated peace rather than abject defeat. And I honestly have no idea how Japan's war would have played out if they could have kept buying oil from the US instead of attacking the US.
During the Continuation War(41-44), Finns kept raiding Soviet convoys and supply dumps along the Northern Karelian routes, getting tons of American lend-lease goods as loot. One interesting thing was that, especially the foodstuff, usually wasn't in all that good condition. Especially with the Tins, you were lucky to get something "edible". If I recall right, some sort of "meat patee" was seen as good stuff and most others just trash. Smokes etc were always a nice treat.
At some points, they had so much of that "trash stuff" they had to just start dumping it. Common joke was that they should let the Soviets have the stuff anyway, maybe they'd starve themselves quicker or lose all morale, whichever came first.
@@MakapaaWait...someone actually liked Spam? We sent that to troll the Soviets.
@@Merennulli And it was the only thing that was processed enough to survive the transit!
I totally understand Finland's high rating. From what they had in terms of manpower and such and the position they were in, they did a tremendous number against the Soviets and should definitely be respected for that.
Speaking of the Soviets, I think low B tier is the best they could hope for. Yes they beat back the Germans and were the first to reach Berlin, but only because of the Allies' help and at a ridiculous cost in assets and people.
Belgium is not F tier in my opinion, I'd put them in D as well. At least they did a little bit of cool stuff during the war, leading to my favorite Sabaton song "Resist and Bite", and there were countries far worse than them.
what were the cool stuff again (for belgium)?
I think the argument for Belgium being F tier is that they kind of pulled France down with them, with the refusal to prepare joint defenses.
@@NotFlappy12 okay yeah, that makes sense. The Maginot Line was utterly useless without Belgium's cooperation
oh dear, you really thinks without allies help ussr wouldve lose? germany dont have these much resources like ussr did to fight
@@OsTaPcHiKwithout the existance of the western front and all the assets germany needed to send there instead of being used on the eastern front germany would of rsn over the USSR.
For the Netherlands:
They might have lasted for a week only, the Germans did want them in a day, so that objective is a decisive Dutch victory. In fact, all along the frontline, the Germans were initially repelled or pushed back after short losses. They captured many paratroopers when the Germans failed to take out major cities that way. In addition to that, the heavy losses on the German air force caused by the Dutch are said to have attributed to the failure in the Battle of Britain. When occupied, Dutch resistance was incredible and even non resistance inhabitants participated in the only real protest against German occupation in the entire war.
As for the Pacific front, they fought hard against the Japanese but eventually lost.
However, since the government in exile was still up and running, the Dutch navy was too. Before the Americans finally restored their submarines, the Dutch actually carried the allies in the Pacific, especially with convoys.
For both the European front and the Pacific attributions, there are some great videos you could watch. For the Pacific, there is a video from a channel named 'The Front' about the overshadowed Dutch war effort in the Pacific.
For the European Front there are videos from a channel named History Hustle for example
Honestly you have to include the importance of the Norwegian merchant marine. Imho C
The Norwegians had one of the largest merchant navies in the world at that time next to Japan.
honestly america gets high s tier for three reasons first they did most of the fighting to push back japan and ultimately caused their demise. second they supplied massive amounts of equipment to allies and second they were the main forces in d-day invasion of italy and opertaion torch
France and Briton could've easily marched on Berlin at the start of the war as Germany diploid nearly all of it's troops to Poland leaving only 5000 troops to defend the western front
:/ yeah no.
I'll give a propper reason tomorrow, it's 2 am and I can't think anymore than to say that's just wrong
Ok, first off, the politics of France and Britain at the time ensured any attack directly on German soil would cause an uproar against their heads of state.
Second, France during this time was plagued by horrible supply in any land they pushed into, as they had built for an entirely deffencive war. France infact had soo horrible recon and messaging systems that the Germans were able to push throw the ardens, WITHOUGHT GETTING CAUGHT FOR MULTIPLE HOURS while the whole opperation could have been destroyed by a few anti tank guns and artillery. Third, the Belgians had mostly dropped official connection with French high command, making any would be offensive maneuvers a disorganized mess.
Now, that's just all of the problems with a French attack, for the Germans however...
The main deffencive line in the saarland, was well entrenched with clear air and artillery on the ready.
If France had even tried a propper attack, (Not like the French attack of our timeline, everyone knew that was just a diversion.) The Germans would have quickly been able to detect an atack, and get troops onto the Frontline. Now, it's important to say here that Germany had exceptionally good railway and radio networks in their land, ESPECIALLY in the Rhineland where they would have been fighting.
The next biggest issue with a French offensive, is how limited their options of where to attack were. The Rhne made the entire southern part of the franco-german boarder impenetrable for the French, and there was no way the Belgians would agree to an attack from their land. The only option was the saarland. A bunker town.
Brb for more tomorrow I gotta go do stuff
Charles de Gaulle or as we germans say Karl der Gaul translated as Karl the horse.
Fun Fact: Even while being absolutely obliterated on all other fronts, Yugoslavia still pushed the Italians back in Albania.
And i would say that Titos Partisans deserve to be A tier. Almost as soon as Yugoslavia capitulated, Tito and Draža (and other Chetniks) rose up. And Tito held on the longest. As Spectrum said, Yugoslavia largely liberated itself. The only thing the Soviets did in Yugoslavia, was march into already largely empty Belgrade. Tito was such a menace to Hitler, he had to keep a very large amount of troops in occupied Yugoslavia, just because of him. So that is why, in my opinion, Titos Partisans (and by extension Yugoslavia) deserves A tier.
Romania was weird. Romania was Germany's most important ally in Europe but also Germany was cool to split 1/3rd of Romania in 1940 with USSR. Romania could have said "hey, we refuse to give up North Transylvania, if you invade us we blow up the oil fields, we lose but take you with us". Or Southern Dobruja, what's up with that? Hitler gave reluctant Bulgaria at the expense of actually useful in the war Romania. Maybe had a grudge for Romania for being Entente in WW1? I'd say top B tier is pretty dope considering they didn't have the great powers' industry.
The US provided the soviet union with much more than machines. We're talking hundreds of millions of boots, uniforms, blankets, guns and ammunition and food stores.
Of that stuff that came through Murmansk: Foodstuff was edible if lucky, weapons were hit-or-miss. Ammo was largely un-useable without the weapons (limiting use of both). Smokes and other accessories/knick-knacks were pretty good tho. At least on the account of the stuff the Finns raided from the Soviets in Karelia - which was quite noticeable amount.
There was a common joke where they almost wanted to Soviets have the stuff anyway as most of it was pretty much just trash.
It really is the machinery, the trucks, the tanks and just the amount of heavy industrial resources sent to USSR that kept them afloat till they managed to start pushing back.
@Makapaa your referring to the standard soviet stores at a different time period that the US was sending items. The food is possible. Anyone who actually served and deployed would know the quality of food and the preservatives required to survive the transit, not to mention a trans- Siberia logistics chain and time to be forward deployed. Russia is famously bad with logistics.
I understand though, some people live their lives to be contrarians.
@@corym8613 The only thing that made sense there was the point about perishables going bad. "No shit!"
US Tins that were sent and arrived in Northern USSR ports were largely deemed un-usable by the time reached the troops.
Dunno whether it was due bad storage during transit or after arriving but that stuff was so rancid that it looked like the USA was trying to sabotage Soviets!
As a Norwegian, i think putting us in D tier is totally fair. Our military was just horribly out of date and unprepared, and pretty much the only major good things we did was sinking the Blucher and handing our merchant fleet to the Allies.
The real problem the Soviets had in the beginning of WW2 was the lack of military expertise!
We can not forget that it was just a couple of years prior when the purge of the old tsarist russia had ended and that the bulk of the militarily adept personnel, was either of nobility, or land owners and therfore had either fled the Soviet Union or were victims of the purge.
The soviets didn't use human wave tactics because they didn't care, but because their commanders were wholly unqualified!
Later, people like Zukov become more prominent through their talent, and we see a rare case of meritocracy play out in the Soviet Union.
With Zukov and others taking up the helm, both the tide and the style of the battles change drastically.
I wouldn't give so much on the comments of Chrushev, btw.
Not much strategical insight to gain from someone who gave himself multiple medals because he felt inferior to Zukov.
As a romanian, I have to mention, that if the Soviet Union wouldn't have been communist, anti religion, and had purged up to 50.000 clergyman alone, Romania would have most likely even sided with the Soviets against the Germans. Aside fom that, the only thing that drove Romania against the Soviet Union, was the demand for Bessarabia and Bocovina, but that's not much different from Germany pressuring Romania to give northern Transilvania to Hungary, and southern Dobruja to Bulgaria.
Gobels is even quoted that without Antonescu, Germany had no ally in Romania.
And even Antonescu was not an german ally by choice but rather by circumstance.
I don’t know enough about tactics to say that the US did badly, but I can buy the idea that we essentially overwhelmed the enemy, and that many other nations helped to beat Germany. The guy should’ve covered the Pacific front more. Many other nations participated in various fronts there, but it was primarily the US that removed Japan from the Pacific itself.
I mean it doesn’t even cover the major pacific nations that weren’t British colonies.
@@kylezdancewicz7346 And on top of that, there’s so much more detail in general to go into. Vietnam 🇻🇳, Burma 🇲🇲, etc. Seriously, you could study WWII your whole life and still not know everything about it.
It is worth checking out the comments on the original video for all the arguments about how Greece should have placed higher.
One doesn’t just not mass produce 145 aircraft carriers, of 28 of them fleet carriers, 11 light carriers, 104 escort carriers, and 2 training freshwater carriers, while also giving away 37 of the escort carriers for free to Britain as Lend Lease, and only joining the war in late 1941 with only 7 fleet carriers and 2 escort carriers and not be put in S tier…
Edit: I forgot about the 2 training carriers in the Great Lakes.
Except Bir Hakiem??? What about the french army of Italy or the 2nd Armoured Division in Paris???
As a norwegian c would be ok we got our gold out to pay for our sabotures and the merchant marine who my great grandfather was in, survived 3 sub torpedo attacks.
The big drawback of Soviet (and later Russian) logistics throughout the industrial and modern eras up until today is that they are extremely dependent on rail logistics. They normally can't project power far away from rail hubs and terminals, and thus tend to be slow and methodical when advancing.
The reason Lend Lease was so important to them in WWII is that those hundreds of thousands of trucks basically eliminated their one strategic weakness and allowed them to do American-style fast-paced advancement. They probably still push back the Germans without Lend Lease aid, but it would have taken a LOT longer. The resulting Iron Curtain is probably closer to Warsaw than west of Berlin in such a scenario, unless the US also doesn't try to invade France, in which case the border could be further west, but the war contunues to the late 1940s with fewer casualties for US/UK/CAN and more for the Russians. There's also a chance the Cold War doesn't stay cold in such a scenario since there wouldn't even be any baseline goodwill from WWII Lend Lease to keep things diplomatic early on.
Belgium is C tier for me one of their squads fought the entire German panzer divisions they lasted 9 days. Defending the Ardennes.
20:10 Norwegians punching air that both France and Italy were ranked above them.
I agree with them, at least on the Italy part.
I think the list is pretty accurate and good. Maybe few countries might have slight shifts up or down but overall would say its pretty realistic.
there's something funny about seeing a teacher try to haggle on a grade 20:05
The performance of the Dutch and Belgian armies was similar. The Netherlands should definitely not rank above Norway.
Please look in Dutch resistance and actions at the pacific front, the dutch surrendered but never stopped fighting, and the things they did where next level
@@Retr0ofGD The Belgians also surrendered and kept on fighting. The Belgian resistance was just as, if not more successful than the Dutch resistance. The Norwegian resistance outshone them both. The contribution of the Norwegian merchant marine was greater than that of the Netherlands and Belgium. The Dutch performance in the Pacific was sub par (except for the submarine division). So, I think the Dutch and Belgians perfomed no better than the Norwegians.
The way this vid ranked Norway is a joke. The amount of work done by the resistance in terms of sabotaging and the amount of logistics the merchant fleet contributed through Northraship outshines many of the countries ranked above them. Especially if you consider the size of the country in terms of population.
as an American, i think they were S+ on logistics and supply, the Russians would've starved without lend lease, but in the field A- or B+..... the Russians would buildctanks and rifles but the American trucks and spam saved the day..... is that a bad take??
Agree with S tier USA. A lot is made of the enormous USA fleet but in 1942 the Japanese had the more powerful fleet and still got outclassed by the Americans. Sure, it was a bit rough in the beginning (the torpedo thing, Wake island, the messy landing in Guadalcanal) but Nimitz and co. played it smart and taking Guadalcanal instead of just neutralizing its airfield was genius and the beginning of the end for the Japanese. The Japanese were dreaming up all kinds of complicated "victory plans" only to be thwarted by the Americans. Even when they caught the Americans with their pants down (Battle of Samar, one of the most epic naval battles) the Japanese still got beaten.
No they were the baddest Ig look the Soviets lost more people in Stalingrad then USA in the entire war
@@Juicehater1488That's not a good thing. Higher casualties isn't a positive
As far as the US, our forces in the Western front I wouldn't consider that important. On the Eastern front, we basically nuked Japan to end that side of the war so we could back out of deals we made with Russia. So we were important, but what we did BEFORE we joined the war I think was infinitely more important than anything else we did. You take away the aid we were sending, our soldiers fighting under the flags of other nations, and even the mentality we brought when we did join were absolutely huge for the efforts. There are a lot of people who believe the outcome had already been decided by the time we joined, but I don't believe that's true. One fluke on either front and Germany would have been right back in the position of power. Imagine if they had managed to capture Stalin or even if they just landed a few thousand troops in England, the outcome could have been very different.
Wars are much harder to win these days bc there are all these international laws that heavily restricts what you're allowed to use. That actually became necessary because of ww2. Everyone was doing absolutely horrendous bs to each other and even their own people. Basically, you had a bunch of heavyweights in there throwing haymakers at each other and all it would have taken is Germany clipping someone for things to turn out very differently. The only way you can be certain you're going to win is if you just end it, now.
i wonder how many troops Germany placed in France just because of the Americans joining idk how much it would help but they could of sent a good chunk of there forces to reinforce the eastern front if they didn't have to worry about a invasion as much
Mentions Luxemburg, shows images from the Netherlands...
Have it paused at the beginning of USSR. Personally, I would put them slightly below Germany. The reason is that I have seen a different video about Germany's invasion into Russia and that there were multiple armies of hundreds of thousands of men encircled and captured time and time again. Until Stalingrad, Russia really didn't seem to do all that well. Well, that and Russia's experience with Finland.
Russia's "luck" was that the Germans were idiots enough to launch a full scale invasion into the void of Russia.
That stuff about lend lease not being needed for the Soviets is 100% bullshit. If they didn't need those supplies, Britian would not have been running Artic Convoys through almost the entire war shipping American and British supplies to the Soviets at the Arkangel port in the artic sea.
Respond with your “tears?” 😂 LOL!
You should totally react to the Disney movie “Victory Through Air Power.” I think it’s available to watch, and it wasn’t until after President Roosevelt saw that movie that we in the US made the commitment to long range bombing.
I want to counter that Axis would have lost anyways without the US intervention. Up to the US getting involved Japan was still running wild in the Pacific and if they never had to fight the US then India would have really been threatened even harder. If Britain had lost India It would have been such a massive blow to them. The Soviets also didn't have to worry about the Japanese invading as once the US got involved the US took Japanese attention and de-fanged them immediately at the battle of Midway. Plus as for Leand-lease, something that isn't thought about. If a country sends you a truck, then you don't need a factory to build that truck and can focus on a tank. Sure only 4% of goods, but when your nation is fully under siege and your three largest cities are besieged, not having to worry about that 4% matters, especially as it allows you to focus on more tanks which tanks are what won the Soviets. Also the US entering really took Italy out of the war as well isolating Germany. I think Italy would have still lost Africa but without the US Italy proper wouldn't have been invaded which wouldn't have pulled German forces to take over when they needed them on the Eastern front. Another impact of the US was the destruction of Germany's UBOAT operations which were impacting British aid to Soviets as well.
It's a fun exercise to look at the impact 1 nation getting involved or not in the war can have.
Does it include all the countries that declared war on the Axis in 1945? Like joining a club at the end of the schoolyear just so you can be in the yearbook photo.
I see they were included in the first video.
The problem I have with USA in S Tier is that this list is about performance not importance. And there is a difference. The US in the early stages of the war performed quite poorly. Given their demilitarisation after WW1 they paied a lot to regain expirience in how to wage and organise for war. And on the Naval side they took a lot of hits before they were able to turn the tide. Also let's not forget that the US took a long time to get involved and actually had phases early on where internal political struggle put into question whether the UK would remain getting aid at all.
Overall from pure performance the only S-Tier (and even that only when one takes into account the end of the story) is the USSR. They were basically dealed a knockout punch by the Germans (practically the whole red army was taken out). But they simply refused to surrender. They packed up their whole industry and shipped it several thousand miles to the east, build a new army bigger and stronger and grounded the enemy advandce to a halt at a cost of life that had any of the western allies be faced with it one could make a case their war moral would have been in serious danger.
Compared to that the US starting the war as the strongest economy, being practically indipendent from resource shipping and thus remaining the strongest economy in face of a global trade war was very important for the allied cause. But impressive performance wise? Not so much.
What a strange tier for the Netherlands. I am Dutch and wouldn't give our guys more than D. I even expected F and would have been fine with it.
Belgium should be ranked in a separate category. They had to stay neutral cuz it was there agreement with the other countries so ofcourse it was free for the taking
Can we rename S tier to freedom tier?
I am pissed! Sincerely, a Norwegian
Wait so trucks are more important than men now? All respect but would the lend lease have had any effect if the soviets didn’t sacrifice the manpower to actually use the equipment on the frontlines?
Always has been. Logistics win wars.
What good are soldiers without supplies? Especially the more soldiers you have the more supplies you need or their performance drops as a whole.
Manpower is importance but manpower alone is useless. You can't march hundreds of miles and expected to win a battle if enemy used trucks at the same times. Also what gonna bring all those tanks, artilleries and ammo to the frontline's troops?
Supply is much more importance. You can have lower manpower but very good supply force can win against bigger force but crappy supply.
USSR might have hold on and beat back German alone but it couldn't has swift counter-attack in our timeline without US lend-lease which included much more than millions of trucks but also radio, cloth, food and high-octane fuel.
@@DOSFS the exact same can apply to equipment. Guns dont shoot themselves nor do trucks drive themselves. Lend lease was important not denying that but i think the soviet sacrifice is at minimum equal to and in my opinion surpasses the importance of the lend lease. As you said yourself the ussr would have eventually pushed back regardless, lend lease just sped up when the inevitable would happen. Either way to me as a British man I will 100% agree America and the USSR both were vital to the war effort i just personally believe the soviets were more vital than the Americans in this (given the fact we were completely fucked before soviet involvement and only survived until soviet involvement because of the RAF and the Royal Navy, also them distracting so much of the German army on the eastern front being the main reason why D-Day and the invasion of Italy were successful.
The food those Soviet troops were eating, the fuel for the planes defending them from the German airforce, the trains that brought them to the front, the tracks those trains ran on, and even the shoes they had on when very often made in the US. It is possible that the Soveits could have won without American aid, but it is also possible the Soveit state would have collapsed in 43 or 44 under massive famine. Keep in mind for the 42 havest the Germans held the majority of the productive africural land.
As a greek a HAVE TO refuse C tier and the lowest i can accept is A. Italy literally came to Metaksas (The Leader of Greece back then) and told him "Give us some strategic land or we will invade at 6am this morning" ,they knew Metaksas would refuse and so did he. Greece couldnt escape it but resisted for 210+ days the Italians and not only he didnt lose but he got North Epirus (South Albania). Greece lost only after Germany attacked(Not instantly thought) and UK actually left Greece to fight both Germany and Italy alone (and because Greece was weakened, Bulgaria attacked later too) and split Greece into 3 occupation zones. Even after Greece was defeated dont forget that Greek fighters was a pain in the ass for the occupiers. On 1941, Greece and UK were the only countries that were still fighting the Axis. So, considering the HUGE gap in power( as was explained before) and the days Greece resisted (more than any country that the axis end up taking completely) its almost insulting to put Greece anywhere below A tier.
I agree. Greece fought hard and delayed Barbarossa
Yes but this was against Italy so… bro cmon Italy sucks
@@vloggingwithsam4811 It wasnt Italy that sucked, Greece was just better prepared both militarily and socially (Read about the period of Metaksas(4 August) in Greece (1936-1941) in 4 years he transformed Greece from a weak state to a decent one). Italy wasnt UK or France but still was a super power
@@rgdevoner2344 they did good in Ethiopia, name another place they did good in
@@vloggingwithsam4811 Albania but what are you talking about man, Ethiopia had like 7 tanks and 2 aircrafts and they were still using spears 🤣🤣🤣.After Albania was Greece's turn (they only attacked on France but there was Germany too).
*Where did Germany rank?*
As a Hungarian, I don't understand Hungary's C-Tier. I mean politically it was a clear F-Tier performance, no questions. (Remember, political performance mattered for other countries like Belgium!) Militarily it's also hard to find strong points. Maybe there the C is kind of reasonable, but I think it should be D too to be honest. Crazy losses in the Donbas and oftentimes due to frostbite and hunger. Soldiers did their best, but logistics and strategy was shockingly bad. Overall: D- at best.
Soviets, B+. Due to pre-war actions. The Soviets could have been an S tier, but Stalin's purges of the military destroyed their ability to wage war in an efficient manner.
Soldiers can be of the best quality, but if your officer corps can't train them and can't lead them competently, their lives get expended unnecessarily.
They won 😲
@@Juicehater1488And?
@alerta656 so did others in the B range.
Doesn't mean it was prosecuted smartly.
oh yeah , tell me more about those pushovers like : bagramian , malinovsky , tolbukhin , vasilievsky , chuikov , voronov , rotsmistrov , konev , zhukov , vatutin , sokolosvsky and so on
@@mariosarrionandia1972 One word. Logistics.
B tier seems perhaps a bit high for the Netherlands but the Dutch inflicted great damage to the Kurt Student's elite paratroopers and the subs in Indonesia sank a lot of Japanese ships while the Americans were still figuring out what was wrong with their torpedoes. Helfrich was nicknamed "Ship a Day Helfrich" for a reason 😁 It's a pity the whole ABDA thing was such a mess. There were definitely opportunities to inflict more damage to the Japanese. After all : Indonesia was a primary target to the Japanese for its resources (Pearl Harbor wasn't just to troll the Americans, it was to keep the American fleet from intervening getting the oil rich East Indies).
Belgium's tier might seem a bit harsh to me. Sure, fort Eben Emael fell to a handful of German elites with glider planes and not allowing their allies on their soil until the Germans actually invaded seems pretty dumb but in the end it didn't really matter. The Germans intended the BEF and the French to move into Belgium so that Guderian and Rommel could punch into France with their Panzer divisions.
Belgium did also break their alliance with France prewar. So that alone is F
Belgium’s Asian Navy carried the country to higher tiers. They held it down while the US has to rebuild the Pearl Harbor losses… they scarified many ships and captains doing it… but they also turned back Japan from Australia until the US got there.
Do you mean the Netherlands? Belgium didn't have any territory or presence in Asia.
@@Nutty31313 oh fuck. Yeah their neighbors. I always get their flags mixed up even though they are super opposite.
@@jackryan444it be like that sometimes bro 😂😂😂
XD oof, I agree with all of this, and Belgium still gets f for casing the fall of france
@@ddesmarais7251 He was talking about the Netherlands, not Belgium, just got the names mixed up.
In my opinion Luxembourg Denmark and Belgium are all comparable here
"The Balkan were such a mess"
I believe progress works differently in different contexts - for different populations. I feel super bad for 'regions' like this because it's like (and this simplifies, if not oversimplifies) "one day they get tested as if they're at the same level as is being tested", when they may well have a different specialist area of focus
Sad they didn’t talk Dutch resistance, they where something else
The armchair historian just put out a video about the modern history of the North Korean military. I totally think you should react to that.
Finland soloed one of the big bosses of WW2 and humiliated them. USSR wasn't even having to split focus on other fronts and Finland was barely receiving foreign support. It was a toe-to-toe brawl and the backwoods skiiers with stolen guns beat the horde so badly, the Soviets had to reorganize their entire military thought process. If you just looked at the numbers and had to guess how things would have gone, no amount of optimism would have come up with a better result.
Anything less than A tier is madness.
I would have put the USSR in C- tier just due to the unpreparedness of them when Germany was clearly going to invade, the Winter War, and the casualties they suffered
Well the USSR won the war alone haha
@@Juicehater1488No one won the war alone kid.
Spectrum said free france & Vichy france, but not the ffi
Belgium deserves F tier for refusing to build fortifications inside it's country and therefore dragging France down into the grave
Copied from your part 1 vid:
USA - S tier. Spent by far the least amount of time retreating/losing/defending out of all the major combatants. Suffered very few outright defeats (Philippines in early 1942 probably being the worst) and never really had to go back to the drawing board strategically because the initial plans in both Europe & the Pacific were similar to the ones they successfully prosecuted all the way until the end. Started the war as an isolationist nation reeling from the Depression with a tiny army, ended the war as arguably the most powerful, wealthiest, and most influential nation in human history. All at the cost of only ~400,000 deaths. I swear I’m not one of those “if it weren’t for us you’d all be speaking German now!” dorks, but it’s hard for me to imagine America performing much better than they did. So I don’t see any reason to give the US less than top billing.
USSR - A tier. Went from a clumsy regional power of the Winter War/early Barbarossa era to a military juggernaut the likes of which the world had never seen, and one of two superpowers competing for global hegemony at the end. However, the sheer scale of their losses early on keeps them out of top tier.
Britain - B tier. Mixed bag. Lots of defeats at first, lots of victories later. Played a smaller and smaller role as the war went on as the US came into its own as the senior parter in the western coalition. Entered the war as an empire on which the Sun never set and ended it as America’s sidekick that was about to lose most of its overseas territories. Still, they won the war.
Germany - C tier. Not terrible but supremely overrated. Yes they took on the whole world at once but that makes them morons, not badasses. They won a lot at first, mainly against tiny nations that couldn’t stand up for themselves. Then got absolutely flattened later on. Effective soldiers + lots of early victories are balanced out by psychotic, arrogant high level leadership. Entered the war as a seriously formidable regional power, briefly attained superpower status, then ended the war as an occupied pile of rubble that was split in half for 50 years and despised by the world.
Japan - D tier. Similarly deranged & arrogant high level leadership. Early victories were attributable to speed and surprise rather than power and skill. Only took the US 7 months after Pearl Harbor to turn the tide at Midway. Then Japan proceeded to lose literally every single major battle against the US on land, sea, and air. Their losses were usually overwhelming too, with staggering casualty ratios compared to the US and entire garrisons wiped out to the last man. Bogged down in China, whipped in Burma, bulldozed by the Soviets in Manchuria, navy at the bottom of the sea, starving/bombed out population, hardly a building left standing after the war that was more than 2 stories tall. Not much to praise here. But enough early victories to keep them out of F tier.
France + Italy - F tier. Constant losses/pathetic performance all around by both countries. No explanation needed.
This comment made me think. I wonder if Japan's huge casualty ratios is one of the reasons why it took them so long to surrender. They didn't have nearly as many men returning to the home islands disabled or men being disbursed to different units after theirs was destroyed and spreading word at the troop level. Would it have made them give up earlier? I'm not sure as the military was running the government, but it might have hurt the home front enough to where the emperor might have felt necessary to move earlier.
Bro MUST be american
@@lollofixxi2216 I mean am I wrong about anything I said? The non American guy Terry is reacting to in this vid also has US as the only S tier nation
@@blazewardog I don’t have an answer but this is a super interesting thought that never occurred to me
- I would not even put Free France as D as that's just too great for what they did. In fact, Free France didn't even do much except Bir Hakiem and then inciting the French Partisans to backstab the Germans during D-Day and even then, it's the general allied powers that liberated France. France in general gets an F. They had all the intel about a new mobile war since the Spanish Civil War and did not capitalize on it. They could have declared war earlier as they lost authority in the Rhineland but they didn't. They could have pushed the Saar Offensive quicker and faster with tanks and at least 25 more divisions than the Germans who only had 22 divisions and no tanks but.. They didn't. They could have modernized but again, they didn't despite having way more manufacturing prowess than the Germans. France in general was playing checkers whilst the Germans were playing 4D Star Wars. It's just no competition and how the French dealt with the entire fucking debacle politically with Britain before the fall of Poland was appalling and hasten the downfall of their own nation. If I can give a F+++++, I fucking would.
- No, again, land lease DID help the Soviets immensely but it's just that typical political bullshit downplayed the assistance and in fact boosted up Soviet's self-reliance way too much. When the Germans started Op Barbarossa, the VVS (Soviet Air Force) was completely decimated and any modern aircraft they had were gone in just 3hrs with over 1000+ planes destroyed. What was even funnier is that the aircrafts that were deemed "new" were all pieces of junks that can't even fight the Luftwaffe properly with the useless planes like the LaGg-3 and the MiG-3 which were horrid aircrafts. The US sent tons of P-40 and P-39s over to the USSR and suddenly the air war flipped and these planes became a stopgap and multiple ace breeding aircraft till the more superior Yak-3 came along and these P-40s and P-39s held the line for over 2 years. Impressive. And also, the last video, I also said that the US sent tons of trucks to the USSR which eventually help in keeping Leningrad alive thru the whole "Highway of Life" system when Lake Ladoga freezes over and they used it as a supply line to the city so yes, the land lease helped the Soviets alot more than they really wanna say. THAT BEING SAID, once the Soviets stabilized the lines again by 1942 and moved their production lines beyond the Urals, their quantity got better and they started to push the Germans back now with more officers that had survived the purge like Vatutin gaining more experience and could rile up a better battle plan. Things swiftly switched to the Russian initiative and KOed the Germans out of their front gates so having them at low A- seems wrong. Sure, 1941 wasn't their best year but they bounced back quite hard even before the US had their hands in the conflict so I'll say that A, yes. Low A, no.
- Putting Finland above the Germans and Soviet is such a slap in the face. I like what Finland did but the Finnish did not even achieve much in the greater scope of WWII like what China did. Finland did well in putting their foot on what they want and that's independence and it's own land which, they did. Sure they prevented the Soviets from swallowing up their lands during the Winter War and then pushed the Soviets back towards Leningrad only for them to siege it together with the Germans (Again, without Germany's invasion, they would not be able to) and then got the narrative flipped when they agreed to a peace with the Soviets if they could get the Germans off their lands and they did with the Lapland War but Finnish contribution ended like that. I like Finnish tenacity but giving them A is waaay too high. B+ at max imo. Impressive but not "WOW HOLY SHIT EARTH SHATTERING MILLION KILLING" moment.
- Naw Belgium deserves the fucking F, F for "FUCKING FAILURE". When the French made the Maginot Line, the plan was to cut into Belgium or at least to the border of Belgium and France but when the French ministry petitioned it up to Leopold III and he rejected it citing that he did not want the French to repeat WWI again on their soil and also denied the French to build it on the borders between them which was a catastrophic mistake. Let's also not forget that he capitulated the whole country without telling his council that he's doing so to the Germans and when he was finally free and returned to Belgium, he nearly cost a civil war due to the disdain he had gotten for selling his country out. F tier more than deserving for Belgium for being a twat.
- Guy's REALLY tripping putting Netherlands that high. The Dutch East Indies did put up a strong fight against the Japanese but it also crashed hard. Even B tier might be a stretch for them. C- imo.
- Patton? OVERRATED?! Guy knows nothing! Patton was overrated for a god damn reason. The Americans were in a mess when they landed in Tunisia and they overestimated their own prowess against a battle-hardened Afrika Corp who had been fighting in Egypt for almost a year before they even went in and the whole American II Corp were nearly decimated. Patton went in, stomped out the trash and then slammed Rommel out of Tunisia once and for all whilst getting his son-in-law back from German hands. Also, he did what the OSS and Eisenhower wanted him to do with Fortitude flawlessly by acting as if he was already out of commission right before D-Day. His push into France and deep into Germany was actually pretty solid if the supply lines would just keep up with him. Patton's overrated my ass.. He's overrated because he's good. If he's not good, why is he lauded rather than still being hated by people unlike Bernard Montgomery for his handling of Op Market Garden?
Putting the Netherlands in b tear surprises me. I would have thought Belgium held on better then we have, even if it where the bombardments that forced us to capitulate.
I’d assume post-occupation contributions may have been the deciding factor. The Dutch government in exile still had a decent naval presence they could use to help Britain and Australian forces.
Belgium had the Congolese who remained loyal to them, but you could easily count them as their own military rather than Belgium’s
The Dutch resistance did many things to just make the German life hell, working with English pilots, operation holland, spywork, hiding pilots and Jews, copying food vouchers, murdering and stealing, and also in the Dutch indies, we where a real pain for Japan, ever heard the story about the Dutch ship tot hided as an island to get back to American harbors? Als out subs where awesome
Didn't he do this video already?
This is part 2
As a dutchie i thought c. But ill take that b any day of the week
The thing make Soviet not S tier is they still seeing Germany as a friend, in October 1940, they still ask to join Axis lmao.
If they well prepare, i believe the casuaties will not that bad.
They never asked to join Axis, this is total BS. Both Germany and USSR knew that this non-agression pact wasn't gonna last. The thing is, the soviets expected the invasion a year later... it happened too soon.
Dude? What?
Not as a friend but as a partner
Different
I seen video before and really disagree with author in the begining about major powers
Like ,US only S tier country ,sounds like clasik joke about americans being too proud about themselfes
But then i overthink a bit and will to correct myself
If we talking about like "pure points only" test ,then yeah i kinda agree that US overkills category
But if we talking about actuall perfomace, like big picture and thinking about situation ,than i would say S tier is US, UK , USSR, Germany without a doubt
Us ,despite all that was said ,i would describe thia place like ,"good use of time and place" they didnt go to war with other world (even Soviets entered earlier) ,and even when they did it wasnt fight for their territory ,and they use it for maximum ,like even Perl Harbour didnt do anything crusial to them in the end
Its mid S tier
UK : thats for me ,most arguable country ,like low S tier, but in the end its them who controlled so many parts of the world and thst stuff ,whp fight everywhere
They can do better if early war loses from allies side is common, things like Itally invasion ,was kinda not really good and if churchill agreed to Overlord plan earlier ,it may even affect post war world
So yeah for me lowest S tier
Soviets: big winner witout a doubt, and here is talks more about what they did wrong ,kinda strange for me ,but okay, lets see what we got here
Casulties, again ,why we do consider it as a minus? Everyone have casulties ,and its only natural that you have so big when most of you country occupied and germans litterally doing genocide
I mean, only really stupid people will think that these cas is result of "suiside" attack
Lend lease, i didnt get this point as well, why when we talking about soviets minuses we taking aid from allies like minus? Its okay to minus country who didnt calculate theit industry and still go to war ,like japan, for them ,indusrty talks can be a minus, but FOR SOVIETS? Maybe someone forgot ,but they was DEFENDING themselfes and with all that happened how they overcome their loses ans all definetly was a plus
And lend lease? I agrre that it is big + for US ,without a doubt, but - for soviets? Dont make me laugh
In the end ,i would say mid S tier along side with US
Germany, finally , and for me they as ,BIG BAD EVIL GUY ,who conquered so many is defintly HIG....naaaah, guys cmon ,they do so much mistakes ,and their nazi policy, and oersonal gitler shit, they get so much, from rearanment from conquering ,if it was German Empire , it may even ended in third Global power in Cold war ,but that happened ,allready happened
And yeah, no High S tier ,cause noone ideal and all that stuff
USSR gets a C to B at best. They just brute forced the war throwing bodys at the problem and could only do so with signifigant foreign aid. The only reason they could do what they did was the resources they had and nothing to do with their actual ability or skill.
Personally I would not give anyone who participated s tier heck I would hard pressed to even give an a tier
Could've Should've Wouldn't've
Germany is a solid S
Saying that land lease won the war ignoring the soviet sacrifices is just like saying that the French won the revolutionary wars
That's not what Spectrum said. He pointed out that it was a huge factor in their victory and put them in A. Also we would not have won our revolutionary war without France so not a good analogy
soviet B+ at best
USSR should be B-tier AT BEST!
Let's ignore the land-lease issue.... you are talking about their entire army being pushed back to the outskirts of Moscow, having an "edge" due to the combination of a HARSH winter, AND the German troops shifting their focus over to the Odesa oil fields more than direct movement towards Moscow and the southern areas around Moscow, massive loss of military leadership due to Stalin's own "purges" AND the issue of basically sending troops into combat (specifically during the Stallingrad area) without materials to fight, basically tossing men into the meat-grinder by having 1 carry a rifle while another carried the "spare ammo" .... and standing orders to SHOOT their own troops if they started to fall back (retreat).
Those are MASSIVE failures as a military, and the only reason they get elevated OUT of C-tier or less, is due to the fact that the winter halted the German army far more than the Russians did, and that halt allowed them to move the men/material around .... AND they didn't actually start to "push back" against Germany on an "effective level" until AFTER the USA got involved, resulting in the Germans having to focus far more on their control over Western Europe, Southern Europe (Italy) AND in Africa.
Yes, the USSR eventually won... but on a pure "How effective was the military" question, they were MID-range at best, meaning B-tier at the HIGHEST possible position.
Ussr S
oh no, no , no , no , no , no
This guy literaly bases his knowledge about the eastern front on enemy at the gates.
And i thought the level of ignorance in this comment section was bad enough, this makes it even worse.
@@mariosarrionandia1972 -- F! Enemy at the Gates, everything that I posted about the USSR doing is actually from their OWN RECORDS of messages to each other ORDERING the things I posted to be DONE by their commanders.
I am using the USSR's OWN RECORDS to show how horrible their military was. And I never even mentioned the fact that their commanding officers STILL believed that "horse back Calvary" would be effective enough to handle "tank led assaults".
Seriously, when you look over all the available historical evidence of what the USSR leadership (both political and military) actually DID to their own forces in WW2, it is shocking that the Germans DIDN'T take over Moscow before the tide turned on them. And that was MOSTLY due to Hitler's refusal to allow the German forces to have the material they needed, time to regroup for additional pushes OR the ability to co-ordinate with different forces (Normal German forces and SS forces) as a more effective fighting force. In short, the ONLY reason that the Russians were able to prevent the capture of Moscow was due to GERMANY'S own conflicting efforts, not Russia's efforts.
@@herrzimm
i had never seen so many ww2 myths together in a single comment , ok , give me some time.
@@herrzimm
DP-27 production (until early 50s , production began in late 20s)
800.000
PPSH-41 production (41 to 47)
6 million
PPSH-43 (1943-1944)
2 million
SVT-40 ( 1941-1945)
1'5 million
mossin nagant (1941-1945)
20 MILLION
(not including pre ww2 production , wich was around ANOTHER 20 MILLION)
So , do i have to say anithing else?
from all of the problems the red army had , lack of equipment wasnt one of those .
bro this guys tier lists are a joke Belgium get F but Netherlands get B ok dud
US army A, US industry S
...and the Navy?
@@NephritduGrey S, definiteIy the strong point of the US on the "fieId"
Us Army B at best
@@lollofixxi2216they were well equipped, well motivated and had a plan. That's good. D-Day and the invasion of Sicily weren't that easy to pull off. Half of the Axis troops didn't even communicate with each other and only wanted to go home
USA #1 🇺🇸
i can't agree with france in D, i can understand why, but if u separate france and vichy governement, u also have to talk about the free france don't u?
Studebaker trucks❤😂😊
De Gaulle fought two battles with the Germans and then was made a cabinet member and was SENT to London by the French president. How is that "bailing on your country"?
D tier for france is too harsh
They were involved in the first allied victorie at Narvik
They save the BEF at Dunkirk
Destroyed more than half of the German air force plane (wich definitely helped for the batle of Britain)
Held back Rommel in the desert at 1vs10 to buy time to the allies to strengthen their defense for El alamein
Almost half of the legendary SAS were composed of French
In Normandy the 2nd Armored Division is the spearhead of the Allies who also captured Hitler's secondary residence his eagle nest in Berchtesgaden
You don't speak about the sacrifice of dunkerque france army saves the british army without this sacrifice no one could know if uk could hold the war waiting for america.
i would personally drop america down to mid A tier at best, they were perfectly placed as a nation geographically to avoid a land based assault on home territory, they failed to recognise the japanese threat in the pacific until it was too late and they were attacked at pearl harbour. While they did majoritally help liberate the pacific islands and the phillipines they did not get overly involved with mainland asias war. Leaving china/india to deal with the majority of Japans forces.
In the western front they helped facilitate D-day and italian invasions, but even with the majority of the Axis forces in the east dealing with the soviets the Allied forces in the west failed to push through as quickly as they thought they would.
My biggest issue would be the reasons they used the nukes and why they decided to firebomb entire wooden towns/cities in japan targetting civiliian populations deliberately.
Do no get me wrong their lendlease and production is a clear S tier
Naval forces would also be high A/low S as well, they lost some major battles along the way in the pacific which severely hurt the Marines supply who were island hopping along the way.
Land forces would be B in my opinion though while they had a few noteable instances of great performance the over all push was stalled in italy and the airborne invasion of normandy while successful was a shambles in execution. (The less said about market garden the better). The marines in the pacific front were a stand out performer.
Air forces would be the only one where i couldnt put a solid placing, i'm thinking A/B but would be open to discussion on all of it. Mainly for the targetting of civilians
TH-cam comments are always hard to get all things across without missing points.
Love your videos Mr Terry :)
I don’t need to like the Soviet Union, but I can totally give credit where it’s due. They did one HELL of a job during that war!!
Soviets A-Tier? Way too high. If it was only Germany vs. Russia than Germany had easily won. Your 'that was only political' that they admitted that without help they lost is pointless, because there was no real reason at that time they made the statements. And lets not forget: they had not just help from the Allies but in difference to Germany they basically ONLY had to fight for themself while Germany had to fight on much more fronts (and many troups were bound due to other reasons) etc. - and also againt the Allies directly (which also helped Russia additionally). Your entire view on this matter is quite obscure. They basically had always greater numbers but lost many times. And if you talk about scale (like with Finland) than its even far worse. Imagine Russia was Poland. Does here really anyone think that they were better than what Poland did? Or exchange them with other countries and compare. No, even B was way to high!
His video is grayed
Sorry but the Uk is a tade low sould equal with Germany or the US
I'd put USSR at C, simply because they just threw bodies at the enemy until something happened.
S
@@Juicehater1488 haha, not their ‘C’, but the latin ‘C’.
tell me you know nothing about the eastern front without telling me you know nothing about it
B tier for me just cuz the entire chain of command was messed up in USSR including stalin until 1943 start or 42 end, they showed rlly good strategy in the 2nd half off ww2 however and were also more advanced, although many soviets died that shows that the germans were on top when it came to defense.
@@mariosarrionandia1972 ok, punk.
Soviet union should be s tier
They should be low a
A tier....too much operations were f*cked up at 1941-1943. But USA , higher then Germany...... seriously?
On D-Day. US Released some of their their tanks too early and they sunk in the water and were not useable and thus mad their landing more difficult and yet they are somehow the old S Tier? riiiiight....Not suggesting they should be way down the list or anything but for idiotic mistakes like that you'd think it would deduct enough points to be A tier.
I really dont get , why eveyone mentioning soviets casulties as smt bad that SOVIETS DID ,you know what most of this casulties was non soldiers and was caused by german occupation, right?
The soviets held Moscow before ANY American supplies got to them. If they can do that they would win regardless. Ofc it would be longer, and potentially more casualties. USA deserve S teir. But USSR deserve top spot
Talks about the soviets in ww2:
Doesnt mention a single one of their operations.
Talks only about lend lease
Ignores the context (de-stalinization) of the quotes he provides.
Puts the USSR below the country it defeated.
Flawless logic 😂
To be fair winning or losing doesn't always mean you have been performing better or worse.
Finland might be a good example as it performed well versus the Sovjets but yeah...
Like if you win a war but you lost so many troops it cripples your future (like what Russia might be doing now, if they would win) is it really a good performance in the end?
@@NephritduGrey
I see where you are coming , BUT.
Those 2 countries were peers in military capabilities , somewhat.
They faced eachother in a total war ( it was actualy an anihilation war for the soviets , since , in the case they wouldve lost , they wouldve been all wiped out)
WW2 on the eastern front its realy unique in the sense that it was fought to the very end , with the n@zi leadership dead by its conclusion.
That didnt happen in ww1 , the franco prussian war , the american civil war , and not even in the war in the pacific.
So , in short , the soviets won the most bloody , terrible war in history which only ended with the complete and utter destruction of their enemies.
As mentioned , those 2 countries were both developed countries with some kind of parity in military terms , one country , germany, had more material resources , a society with higher education standards and by the point in which it invaded the ussr , had the combined resources of almost all of europe.
The other nation, the ussr , had just at best a 2 to 1 manpower advantage ( if you only count germany) , and they took the right political decisions to win the war , like mobilizing the entire country for total war from day one.
On the other hand , germany would take similar policies only in early 1943.
So yeah , in short , the USSR played its cards really well , germany? not so much , a great start , but it wasnt enough with that.
Thanks for your answer!
@@mariosarrionandia1972 Yeah, but it's also not a have the Soviets been better than Germany list, but more than that.
That said without foreign aid even the USSR might have gone down a different route.
Didn't Stalin refuse to leave Moscow? And how many tanks have been defending it have been of foreign build?
"Britain was quick to provide materiel aid to the USSR beginning in August (1941) - including tanks and aircraft - in order to try to keep her new ally in the war against the Axis powers."
Oh, on the other hand what if Italy didn't suck in their campaigns and Germany would have invaded earlier?
Anyway... each side made mistakes (all war parties) and for some it was costlier than to others.
Like how Japan screwed itself over by attacking Pearl Harbour.
How France screwed itself over by a military thinking 1 war behind.
How Germany screwed itself over by a silly moustache man (and chewing off more than it can eat)
How the leadership of the USSR might have changed, but who knows what might have happened in that case.
etc. etc.
Though overall it's a better outcome in reality than could be the alternatives. Though the other way around works too, as with everything really.
@@NephritduGreycorrect information about Russian losses at Ukraine is absent, because Ukraine and westies data is totally biased. P.S.I could say same thing about russian data about elves losses, anyway .
the guy who made the original video has a clear anti-communist view, so he undervalued the USSR and the chinese communist party in the first video. His judgement of these two sides is not valuable at all.
I don't think it was the Soviet Union, nor the allied Lend Lease that won the war on the Eastern Front. It was the indomitable spirit of the Russian people defending the Rodina against Aggressors that won the war. In my own analysis, had no Western contributions on any battlefield been existing, WWII would have extended deep into the 1950s, but Russia would have beaten Germany in the end.
Huh?
The Russians were starving when Lend & Lease kicked in... so no.
@@Jargolf86Are you slow?
As long as Stalingrad was Russian, everything was on Russian side.
@@WeoXCYyou mad Dude? Need to insult People because you cant imagine your fucking Russians not beeing Godlike as the Propaganda stated?
Germany is the only s tier
Soviet Union is clearly an S tier nation imo. The americans had the best geography so arguing that america fed them with machines is expectable. Soviet union put the massive amounts of men and their anger against the germans and the us provided some of the machines (still not all of them). If any of these factors was not present then the war could have taken a very different turn. So I think if the one supplying the machines is S tier so should be the one who provides the men. Also the americans when they first encountered the germans did not fair much better (Casserine Pass) and they were facing a depleted AfrikaKorps not the juggernaut of 1941 wermacht. That is also my argument for Germany in S tier. One on one and even undersupplied or outnumbered they could pack a real punch and the fact that they fought pretty much solo on both eastern and western and african front for almost 6 years (sorry italy but though your men were brave your generals were fools and your equipment...well tereible)
Lend lease
Lend lease
The problem is the fact that the ussr had a massive amount of manpower and didn't do as much as the USA shows how weak their nation was when an "unexpected" war happened
@@NapoleanBlown-aparte
Lend lease only began arriving in a decent amount by late 1943 , by wich point , germany was strategicaly defeated on the eastern front.
The lend lease is underapreciated by modern russian authors to the same level as it is overvalued in some western authors
@@j._blitz.
The soviet union had only a 2 to 1 advantage in manpower over germany on paper . By late 1942 1 third of the soviet population was under german occupation , so they barely had a 1'5 to 1 advantage over germany ( im not counting german allies , because in that case , it is the soviet union the country with a smaller manpower pool)
The only advantage the soviets had over germany was manpower ( steel , coal and rare materials production in germany was 3 times larger even in 1944 , and look how well they used that advantage) , they used it properly and were able to field an incredibly strong and modern army , wich by 1944 , even after the disasters in 1941 , was the most powerful army in the world
Nope
So Finland played a more important role than Germany, Britain and Japan? Say no to drugs! At the start of the video, he said he's taking into account the production and overall size of the military. Then he proceeds to forget all that. Why make the rules if you're not going to stick to them? The proceeds to go on how significant supplying Russia was, without any mention of who was responsible for getting the shipments there. Did the Tirpitz, the most dangerous ship in Europe, sink itself? Not only did the British supply the Soviets with the tanks and planes they needed, they also defeated the Kriegsmarine and were the ones responsible to escort the supplies through the Baltic. As for Patton, he wasn't just overrated, he was a danger to his own men. He had no regard for them at all. If not for Monty at the Battle of the Bulge, the Germans would have broken through and would have surrounded and killed many Americans. Monty saw what the Germans were trying to do, and saved many American lives. Due to having an understanding of strategy, which is something Pattern clearly did not. D-Day was a British operation. Seeing how useless the Americans were at landing in Normandy and their equally poor performance shortly after, saying the British and Canadians weren't capable of invading France without the Americans, shows a distinct lack of knowledge on the subject.
Well if you listen to his reasons you would've understood why he put it in the A tier.