The Day When Hitler Lost the War
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 сен 2024
- Adolf Hitler died on April 30, 1945, marking the end of the Third Reich; a few hours later, the German Wehrmacht asked the Soviet Union's Red Army for a ceasefire. The following day, Nazi Germany capitulated. However, it was not in Berlin that the fate of the war was decided. The German defeat had been unavoidable from the day Adolf Hitler launched an attack four years earlier against the USSR.
Goring told Hitler his air force would defeat Britain. It didn't. Goring told Hitler his air force would keep Paulus's troops, who were surrounded in Russia, supplied. It didn't.
Rather stupid of Hitler to believe an addict's delusions of grandeur.
Britain was defeated.
He told Hitler what Hitler insisted on hearing. Reminds me of someone in today’s political world…
@theboot801 It is very true that Hitler and Trump have that in common, insisting on being told what they want to hear (and so as a consequence being delusional and disconnected from reality).
As for Goring being wrong about his Air Force destroying Britain’s, well, never trust a man who carries a fruity baton around as part of his military costume lol.
Had Hitler not switched to bombing cities in Britain instead of airfields Germany may well have won the battle of Britain. We are all very lucky that Hitler was an idiot.
Yeah, Germany could never beaten the Soviets. But, his declaration of war on the USA on December 11, 1941 definitely sealed his fate.
Ruskich nikt nie pokona z zachodu chyba że chińczycy zażądają zwrotu! miliona kilometrów kwadratowych ziemi ukradzionych przez ruskich! W Rosji życie człowieka dla władzy jest nic nie warte! Poświęcać mogą miliony ludzi i nikt nie da rady ich zabić! No i mają tysiące kilometrów głębi strategicznej i mroz ze śniegiem! Powodzenia!
We were already in undeclared war, we had sunk u boats and were supplying the Soviets and British and Chinese, Hitler just called a spade a spade
No. June 22nd 1941 sealed his fate. They were already losing prior to Moscow and had absolutely zero chance of taking the city. Their logistical train had lost efficiency well before The Battle of Moscow in late 1941 and they had suffered more casualties and lost equipment against the Soviet Union then in all previous battles put together by a country mile. By the time D-Day rolled around the Wehrmacht had lost all their territory they had conquered against the Red Army, and now were facing threats to their allies like Hungary and Romania. An argument can be made that had the allies not landed in 1944 then the Red Army would have just occupied all of continental Europe, after rolling up Germany.
They could of beaten the Soviet’s.
@@juncondoonflanjacontose7399 indeed in a straight fight yes they could of.
Once a bunch of 4 stars started taking orders from a former E-4 with zero tactical experience or training, there fate was sealed, and they knew it.
Not trying to support someone like that, but the that E-4 mopped up all of Europe, several African states and the Baltics in less than four years. His only error was declaring war on both Russia and the US.
this is a very absurd comment... thanks
@@AbsurdityViewer Truly~
@@AbsurdityViewer Comment is totally justified. Hitler was INSANE had confident of his own infallibility. He imagined that he could tell generals how to wage war, and he was 100% WRONG.
you're naive to think wars are only fought by the "military", there were no glory for German "generals and field marshals" without Hitler's political skills that brought Germany to it's peak height in the first place.
A war against the Soviet Union by itself would have been another matter, but a war against half the world...what could he have been thinking?
He thought he was a demigod and was destined to rule the world, and with divine help he couldn’t fail.
Like all meglomaniacs, he wasn't. His ego prevented him from doing so.
Early wins blinded him and he was coked out of his fuckin skull a lot of the time.
A gamble that speed would bring him to victory. He and most of the generals thought Russia would fall quickly. Then they could wrap things up and consolidate and fortify.
That didn't happen. There was really no way that it could have happened. But the Germans were absolutely horrible at interpreting GOOD intel that they had in hand.
@@electrolytics it didn't help that hitler ignored any sound advice he got from his generals. Like during the battle for Berlin, he wanted them to move imaginary divisions into place to counterattack
I love how they say Hitler was incompetent and evil but refuse to say that Stalin was just as incompetent and evil.
They do????
Your comment is refuse.
Well, Stalin didn’t commit his troops in an adventure where they were defeated and decimated and lost his country in a subsequent counterattack. It seems that Stalin was not as incompetent as Corporal Hitler. Actually, Hitler was mostly stupid. His megalomaniacal plans were unsustainable. His “third reich” lasted 6 years and resulted in the destruction of Germany.
Who is they? This video? Because it’s common knowledge he was mo military strategist, killed his own top officials, and killed his own ppl
Hitler and Stalin were the very same Socialist Tyrant with very little actual difference between them.
@@michaelwalter6423 you are correct. They were both tyrants who killed their own people and ruled with an iron fist
Stalin was as evil as Hitler.
More so
So?
The difference is Stalin wasn’t the idiot who caused the holocaust nor did he desire world conquest 🤷🏽♂️
@@mikhailiagacesa3406 Do you disagree with my comment?
Μπροστά στον ΜουρλοΣταλιν ο ΜουρλοΧιτλερ ήταν αγγελούδι (που λέει ο λόγος έτσι)...
It's ironic since the Soviets and Nazis weren't as different as you might think. Plus, the Soviets helped the Nazis invade Poland in 1939. We should remember that, too.
Stalin was trying to find ways to get along with AH…he knew Russia could not defeat Germany by itself…. USSR got much support and intelligence from the Allies throughout the war.
The allies turned down an offer of an anti Hitler alliance. You are forgetting that
@@Slo-ryde They did. But the fact that the Soviets didn't just invade Poland with the Nazis, they took it for themselves after the Nazis were kicked out.
@@misterpinkandyellow74 What are you referring to?
@invisibleman4827 the fact you are unaware of this common bit if historical knowledge shows you how bias you 😄
The moment he decided to attack Russia , he lost the war…..
Wrong, the decision to invade Russia, from Germany’s perspective back then, was the right decision. It was how they went about it that was all wrong.
They didn’t have enough oil supply and were reliant on Russia’s exporting it to Germany. Russia could switch it off at any time and invade Germany, which its military buildup in the late 1930s and attacking Finland, an ally of Germany, threatened.
Germany tried to bypass its basic oil and rubber supply flaw, by developing more advanced tanks, planes and rockets. But they weren’t perfected and they wasted their dwindling supplies and time on them. Instead of just building the proven weapons. Panther 3 tanks. U boats, 109s and stuker planes. Bc they didn’t have enough oil to feed them.
Or enough rubber for truck tyres, for their logistics.
They needed to amass more oil and rubber, and keep it underground, safe from allied bombs.
Then they could’ve starved Britain imo surrender and used the Royal Navy to help conquer the USA. In exchange for leniency and cooperation with the British.
Germany also needed to stop Britain helping the USA to develop nukes. Then Germany would’ve got them soon, by late 1946, early 1947.
They needed the oil, in the Caucasus region of Russia, to do this. It was a catch 22 situation for Germany. They needed the oil to fuel their weapons and trucks. But they needed those weapons and trucks to get the oil, and defend from potential counter attacks, that Hitler was paranoid about.
They did actually manage to capture some of the Caucasus oilfields. But the oil wells were destroyed by the Russians and losing at Stalingrad, made Russian counter attacks there inevitable.
With a slower buildup and halting at Smolensk for the winter of ‘41/‘42, Germany could’ve succeeded their primary objectives. Blitzkrieg was the wrong strategy, for an area 10 times bigger than all their previous conquests.
Exactly. Ego caused him to over extend himself and think he was undefeatable.
I read an article about a German officer who visited the US after the war and as soon as he saw the manufacturing might of the US (at the time) he responded with "what were we thinking"?
31st July 1940 at burgtesgarten.
WRONG,..The 2,000 (of which 830 bombers) planes he lost in the Battle of Britain lost Hitler the war,.
If he had those planes he would have taken Greece quicker and started Barbarossa a month earlier and would have taken Russia before the winter set in~
If the sickle and the swastika were aligned the world would be much different today
That's what you get when you reject a man from art school.
Stalin and Adolf two sides of the same evil coin
Bullshit. You would be goose stepping and Sieg Heiling without the sacrifices of the USSR. Shame!
Churchill and Roosevelt included
@@john-em1jr Bullshit! Hitler opened Auscwitz but Stalin (and the Red Army) closed it. So, not the same coin. Idiot!
Not really.
Not quite. Stalin could sing!
He could have beaten the Soviet Union if he had entered Ukraine and Belarus pretending to be a "liberator." They would have happily fought against Stalin.
That didn't fit his racism. You're asking Hitler to be not Hitler.
Berlin, not all of Nazi Germany, "capitulated" on May 2, 1945. Nazi Germany surrendered on May 8, 1945.
Stalin and Zukov had the answer given, American leand lease and entry saved the soviets, out of their own mouths. They both said without the US help they would have lost.
The German defeat at the gates of Moscow in december 1941 occurred effectively before lend/lease.. The German high command knew that a rapid victory was necessary as a long war would become a war of attrition( the Germans could not win such a war as they lacked resources). When Keitel was asked, when did the German high command know that the war was lost, he responded with one word " Moscow".
The over 12 million tons of materiel and supplies given to the Soviets mostly by the USA, but also from the UK, enabled the Soviets to maintain the war. Being stopped almost at the gates of Moscow was as much the fault of the Germans as the Soviets. The Soviets were almost exhausted by then. The Germans didn’t prepare for the winter. Neither their clothing or food was adequate. None of their machinery was winterized and constantly broke down. Their poor ability to supply their armies has been written about many times with much detail.
@@melgross lend lease was certainly helpful but even the german economist and generals knew Germany had no chance of winning against the Soviets. German war games before the invasion demonstrated that Germany would lose(as fate would have it, the unfortunate General Paulus was involved in these games ;thus having a chance to witness his future). in fact, the prime reason the Germans were able to advance as far as they did was the result of Stalin's meddling with the Stavka; with Stalin's refusal to move strategic industries beyond the Urals; Stalin's insistence of moving the Soviet Military to the new western frontier of the USSR: Stalin's refusal to believe the mountain of evidence presented to him of German preparations for operation Barbarossa. Even with Stalin's 90% destruction of the Soviet officer corp, the Russian high command was capable of defeating the Germans without Stalin's further interference; even with these frightful handicaps and the appalling losses of the Soviets in 1941, the German military was crippled by the endless battles, the attrition rate of reducing surrounded Soviet armies, and the constant near suicidal attacks of the red army.In 1941, the German army was at it peak yet the Soviets were only beginning to call up the reserves, the t34 tank and the heavy KV was just warming up and the Siberian divisions in the Russian far east were patiently waiting. Had Stalin not interfered with the Soviet high command, it would have been highly unlikely that the Germans would have reached Moscow.
@@melgross i wonder why my responses on this thread have been erased.
@@bedstuyroverThe British had already started giving aid to the Soviet Union and America gave the Soviets vast amounts of aid( food, weapons ECT.) from 1942 to 1945. With that said the Soviet Union fought with great pride and no fear of the Nazis and was the cause of the victory in the East no doubt. Instead of arguing about who did what can we not agree that all three allies freed Europe from the Nazis and deserve credit for it..
Videos like this always stray too close to the "Madman-Hitler" trope and make it seem as if Hitler got into power almost by accident.
He was elected.
It isn't just that. People like him are put into power fairly often in history, current times included. The biggest flaw in war is that any given dictator may not be a skilled military planner. They often have actual military people making the details work. But as dictators increasingly make plans and demand absolute obedience, poor military decisions are inevitable. Even skilled military officers who know better won't refuse because refusal is death. Thus someone who often has no military skill is allowed to direct the whole scheme, while the opposing side often does have actual warriors at every level and will invitably win against such a dictator. Sadly many people have not learned these lessons and even now readily hand over leadership to fools who have huge egos and popularity but no skill. When such people face actual military opponents, it becomes a slaughter.
@@LatitudeSky Stalin gave his generals a lot of freedom to make decisions independently of him. Hitler did not.
@@davemathews7890 He was not elected into the Chancellorship. He was given that position by President Hindenburg.
@@darnaby4110 Yes, we all know that. Quit showing off.
The only difference between Hitler and Stalin was the length of mustache.
Never underestimate a man with a big moustache, you never know what’s hiding beneath it.
Lol😂😂😂😂
Stalin actually had Hitler beat by at least 4 million people killed. Of course, Mao had 8 times as many as both of them combined, so he's the genocide king.
You're being very silly, Donk.
Hitler had only one significant Jew on his side, Luftwaffe Chief Milch. The rest, many of them/us just peasants, but tens of thousands of educated and productive citizens, he had chased out of the country back in the 1930s.
Stalin, by contrast, had the support of the Jewish peasantry of the Pale setttled 1200 years earlier, and of the smalled advanced Jewish bourgeoisie which had emerged after the 18th-19th century enlightenment.
These are more than the length of moustaches: they are major differences of political, technical, and scientific strengths of the two societies.
Your dopey joke is blinding you to the realities of the world.
@@TheDavidlloydjones the dope is you. HItler and Stalin were two sides of the same monstrous coin
Excellent documentary. The part about 9/10ths of his total Army was fighting the Russians leaving only 1/10th to defend France a lot of people don't know about. That's why we were in Paris only 76 days- we overwhelmed them.
There were 2 strongpoints that Hitler thought would be difficult to overcome 1- the atlantik wall 2- the siegfried line this is why he beleived 1/10th could hold back the allies. The war was impossible to win. The united states developing nuclear weapons was inevitable.
@@bsaintnyc Totally agree. After they were halted at the gates of Moscow and later at Stalingrad, the war was over for them from then on. But Hitler being Hitler, pressed on leaving his own country in ruins.
20m Russians died in this war, by far the most of all nations. Maybe we shouldn’t forget that so fast.
Correction, 5.7m russians died, the rest were ppl from the minority regions and other territories occupied by the soviet union.
@@capusvacans Looks like we are both wrong en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties_of_the_Soviet_Union
When "historians" tell about "bad Stalin" it's "20 millions", but when they tell about "USSR victims of Hitler" it's many times less.
The problem is Devil runs the world. He is lier and murderer. This is the reason why deception and violence are everywhere. This is the reason why Hitler got the power, but Christ was executed as "blasphemer" and "rioter" by denunciation of clergy.
That's why we've got the Gospel about the God's kingdom. Jehovah would put everything in order. The dead will be resurected and we'll meet our loved ones again! :-)
Putler especially forgets that...
Sure, you can honor the soldiers. But dont honor the Soviet Union. The Russians enabled ww2 and should be equally guilty in starting the war. This is also something we forget very fast.
The war was lost on May 24, 1940 when the panzers were ordered not to attack Dunkirk, giving the panicked and routing British forces time (a day was enough) to reform and mount a serious defence.
There's truth to that. Although Hitler didn't know it, the British Army was totally unprepared for war. If he had continued his Blitzkrieg across the English Channel, it's likely Britain would have fallen just like France.
@@timrprobocom
With what ships? FFS if even the Luftwaffe had managed to get superiority over the channel, the Kriegsmarine was in no shape to pull off a cross invasion channel. At the time they had 10 fuking destroyers, 10! No specialized landing craft and no artillery that could be brought across the channel because of the mines there. The Germans would have to win a quick and unbloody likely invasion with no resources to do so. The Brits had over 3000 artillery pieces protecting just the south coast. Sea Lion was a stupid idea with zero chance of success.
Hitler was hoping the British would come around and ally with the Germans
@@timrprobocom They did not have a means for getting a million men across the English Channel. If they had they would have done it.
I agree
Hitler lost when he diverted his tanks towards south away from the march to Moscow. Otherwise there would have been enough time to wipe past and over Stalingrad and into Moscow well before winter.
Hitler was very worried that France would attack his rear while he was involved with Poland. The Rhineland was poorly defended, and the French could have changed history. Sadly, France had a defensive mindset, partially because of their terrible losses in WW1, and their failure to develop a modern and plentiful airforce.😮 Britain's forces were spread out over the globe, and she hadn't fully recovered from the great depression. She was not really ready for war in 1939.
A sensible analysis.
Yep. Chamberlain's treaty that promised "peace in our time" was meaningless, and Chamberlain knew it. It bought time, and behind the scenes the UK was building up its military for the war it knew was coming. Even before Hitler invaded Poland the UK had people in the US buying weapons. The P-51 Mustang was a British order for example.
The great depression didn't end in Britain until 1940, with the construction of 28,000 pillboxes and other fortifications across the country
The USSR would have collapsed without the Lend-Lease Act and help from Britain (intelligence).
Loss of food would have sealed the fate of the soviets (unless helped by foreign powers fighting for communism)
The soviets got enough food from the USA to feed its soldiers for the rest of the war,
12 million boots , 60 percent aluminum and steel, a lot of tin , 90 percent of railway equipment ( the soviets would never have been able to conduct offensives so fast and transfer their main armies to critical points , 300000 trucks were given , 65 percent of aviation fuel and much more apart from 15 percent tanks ,aircrafts
Soviet sympathizers say "only 15 per cent was given to USSR"
So you would prefer the Allies had just not helped the USSR? You are right about the amount of help the Americans gave them though. However Hitler was threatening the peace of the world and the bigger threat.
@@matthewgabbard6415I think his point is that the Russians love to underplay the role of lend-lease
The same as Ukraine today. How the tables have turned. Except for the oil supply that the Nazis needed from the Caucasus.
Fun fact: theft and corruption in all of the Soviet Union were so rampant due to decades long shortages that when boots were shipped from the US/Canada to the USSR, they went in separate shipments of left boots and right boots to prevent being stolen all along their journey to the soldiers at the front.
The Allies should have let Germany and her Allies battle the USSR till they bled each other dry.
Sept 1,1939 is the day, don't have to watch video!
Correct! It was crazy impossible task from the very first day
When Lenin was dying he knew that Stalin shouldn’t be the leader of the USSR and tried to warn other high ranking Soviets. Stalin was cruel to Lenin’s wife as Lenin was dying after yet another stroke. With Stalins position he was able to grab the top spot and kick out Trotsky who fled to Mexico and even in Mexico Stalin felt threatened so he sent agents to kill Trotsky which after a few attempts was finally successful. Stalin had a temper and even his sons feared him. He was just as bad as Hitler except he didn’t raise his voice; at least not in public. 1 big difference between Hitler and Stalin was that Hitler didn’t trust his generals at all and refused to listen to them. Even one of his favorites, Rommel, was limited as to what he could do such as moving the panzer unit during D Day and D Day started EARLY and no one would wake Hitler to tell him so he could move his tanks. Stalin, after failing miserably at the start of Operation Barbarossa because he was warned by multiple spies that Hitler was about to attack and felt that they were lying so many troops were captured or killed, he finally woke up and started to listen to his generals especially Zhukov and Konev. Zhukov even spoke up to Stalin. He knew he needed to start listening to his generals or he would lose the war and thanks to Zhukov’s planning at the Battle of Stalingrad and Operation Uranus the Soviets finally got their last wind and started to win the rest of the battles. Even Hitler commented that he wished Zhukov would switch sides to the Nazis.
Zhukov was an idiot not a commander, he killed more people than Himmler. He did not plan Stalingrad. Stalin did not believe in an attack because Hitler had several times weaker army. He almost lost the war because the Red Army fled from the border.
At that time many leaders though that the day Hitler lost the war was when Mussolini decided to invade Greece, on 28 October 1940. Greece was trying hard to remain neutral since the beginning of the conflict and even during the Italian offensive. When the Greek army managed to repell the Italians into Albania Mussolini turned towards Hitler for help.
The Italian debacle forced Hitler to postpone the invasion of the Soviet Union and instead waste time ressources and personnel to invade Yougoslavia and then Greece itself.
Things didn't go as smoothly as during the previous campaigns. The Metaxa line did not fail and claimed a lot of German lifes before the wermacht flanked it. Even after the fall of Athens, the invasion of Crete was a bloody mess for the invaders. The civilians population rushed to combat alongside the remaining of the Greek army and the British troops. Such was the damage that Hitler never used paratrooper forces again.
Despite their defeat both Yougoslavs and Greeks resistances were a thorne in the German boot.
Both Staline and Churchill acknowledged that the delay and waste of ressources due to the Greek campaign changed the odds for the Soviets by giving them enough time to prepare themselves for Barbadossa, halting the blitzkrieg at the doors of Moscow.
Distrusting your generals is like distrusting your wife. Then there is no marriage but backstabbing that is an obvious defeat in war environment.
The second invasion of Russia was the beginning of the end. Hitler, at that time, used only skilled German troops and still failed again. Hitler forgot that Napoleon failed to conquer Russia. Yes, history does repeat itself.
Hitler relied upon over 500k Romanian soldiers in the attack as well. Also pockets of Italian and Hungarian forces. Hitler's Grand Armee relied on quick victories, not attritional warfare. Hitler really lost when Halder changed the plan and went for Moscow and Leningrad instead of the oil in the Caucasus that Hitler really wanted.
Stalin was borderline insane, but he was outnumbered 4 million to 2.7 million on the day of the attack. If only the Germans pushed south instead of center and north.
Previous NATO attempts... teutonic knights before that -
The war was not lost in 1941 or 42, 43, 44, or even 45. The war was lost in 1918 when the German Government fell and no one could actually replace it to guide Germany out of its Prussian past into a more modern state. This failure of German politics created the conditions that resulted in a Germany strong enough to take on France and Poland, but not actually strong enough to take on the UK and USSR.
or perhaps the failure started in the 1860s under Bismark who united the German nation through war and counter revolution.
Or perhaps the failure in 1945 was created in the 1700s when Prussian militarism defined the monarchy and future nation.
Perhaps it was in the immediate post Roman era when a set of small states and duchies formed in the vacuum left by the 3rd and 4th century AD fall of Roman governance and the nearly one millennium of cultural and technical isolation.
Pinning "turning points" is absurd because in truth, all of these items played a role.
J*de* declared war on germany 1933, thats when it losy the war, its in the new york times
I love your knowledge of the Germanic people. Too complicated to isolated one historical context
And perhaps Homo Sapiens defined Germany's fate by not keeping Dinausors alive and using them to their own benefit. Tf u talking about dude😂
The Poles were not defeated by Germany. They were defeated by Germany and Russia attacking from two different directions at the same time.
Defeated by Germany. Cope.
as if they could not defeat them alone easily
@@cheezycrackers8677 no, both by Germany and Russia. Russian attack on 17th September 1939 has sealed the fate of Poland in that war.
@@piotergod The fate of Poland was sealed on 1st September 1939 when the German military attacked.
Not a very smart warlord.
You are correct they are totally ignorant, but they are master manipulators😬 a lot people have gone to their death because of them they are agents of chaos just like Trump💯🥺
A meth head monster for a warlord
Keitel held back briefs from OKH showing it was not possible to get supplies to the Leningrad-Moscow-Rostov line in the first year, let alone to the Archangel-Astrakhan line, which was the objective for 1941. Germany simply did not have enough trucks, trains or road and rail construction capacity.
Even ignoring supply, Paulus ran a series of war games before Barbarossa showing that beyond the Leningrad-Rostov line Axis forces would be operating without reserves. Unjust that his army would be first to suffer the consequences.
Compounded by the total failure of German intelligence to discover and assess Soviet war-fighting capabilities.
But Hitler had little choice. The Third Reich could not feed, fuel or supply occupied Europe due to the blockade. The USSR held the resources he needed and on the information he had available to him, it seemed possible.
Adolf Hitler thought that Russia would be occupied within 6 months. But it was a huge mistake. Russia is a continent, not a country!
While not a "continent", it is enormous.
No, because the distance between where his eastern front began in Poland and Czechoslovakia to the targeted Moscow-Leningrad-Stalingrad axis wasn't a continent's width to have to cover. It was a larger landmass than their previous blitzes across western Europe, sure, but it wasn't so vast that it was impossible.
Remember, they didn't have to conquer the entirety of Russia because 70% of Russia's landmass is just uninhabitable, barren wasteland anyway. All the infrastructure and population centers of Russia are in the west, near Europe. All Germany had to do was conquer the shorter space separating his armies starting points in Poland, Czechoslavokia, and Romania to Leningrad, Moscow, and Stalingrad
Just like Dictator Clownshoes saying the war with the Ukraine would take only take 2 weeks.
But the roads were rivers of mud and the winter of ‘41/‘42, was far worse than normal. So it may as well have been like conquering the whole of Asia, with good roads and weather.
USSR occupies a significant proportion of both the continents of Asia and of Europe.
Russia, part of USSR, is not so large, dependant on if you wish to include the Siberian territories East of the Urals etc.
Hitler's ranting oratory was just a rhetorical act; his natural speaking voice was the softest German you'll ever hear.
A number of people wrote of how quiet and polite and charming he was in private.
Well, even so, I still don't like him.
Is this the Mr Hilter that is standing in the Minehead By-Election? 😂
So Stalin had his political opponents tried on bogus charges. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
I think he lost at Dunkirk. He didn't allow the panzers to finish the job even though his generals advised him to do so. He believed that the humiliation of such a defeat would have prevented the English from considering peace. Instead he gave them the nucleus of a new army, & very importantly, he gave them the mythology of the great Dunkirk miracle, which would prove an enormous morale booster to a ruthless enemy very close to defeat.
You may have a point, but only if the entire British Expeditionary Force and other UK personnel were either destroyed or captured and the UK would have decided to exit the war because of it. Not having a hostile UK (and USA using it as a stepping stone) would have allowed Germany to redeploy a lot of Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe forces to the eastern front. It may have given them the extra oomph in crucial battles (Battles of Moscow, Leningrad, perhaps Stalingrad/Caucasus) and possibly toppled the Soviet regime. But we'll never know.
Von Rundstedt recommended the halt order. The lead elements were utterly exhausted and had been running on methamphetamine for days. Driving the lead elements into the Dunkirk defence would have just destroyed a few hundred more tanks, and risked the French realising they could have reversed the encirclement.
@@awordabout...3061 the french leadership was already beaten and had pretty much given up. The best part of their army was gone. France was falling no matter what by Dunkirk. Now as regards the loss of most of the BEF, with the strength of the peace party at that time Churchill would have either been forced to seek terms or he would have lost a no confidence vote and Halifax would have become PM and asked for terms
With the ability to throw everything at Russia; and also a much stronger Luftwaffe that had not lost so many of its best pilots in the Battle of Britain, it is very likely that Germany would have taken Russia down in 1941. No diversion of any strength to the Mediterranean, North Africa or Greece. A significant difference
@@gruntforever7437 Germany did throw everything at Russia - the forces on the Atlantic Wall, especially in 41-42, were third-rate units with almost no mobile equipment. Attrition of pilots over Britain was a signficant loss but there's no way another hundred-thousand riflemen with a few captured Chars or french field guns would have changed the outcome in the East.
@@awordabout...3061 when you add up everything used everywhere else but Russia after June 1940 it is not a small amount. And Adolph Galland said that the Luftwaffe never really got back to what it was before the Battle of Britain. As I said many of its best pilots and air crew were lost.
And when you remember how close it was in 1941 claiming that would have made no difference is laughable
A couple of major points to remember:
A: Soviet Union would have never survived German attack on its own. Without massive help from USA and UK, Soviet Union would have lost its war.
B. Germany could have knocked out Soviet Union's ability to make mechanized war with better strategy and preparedness.
IF Germany had invested in ability to make long-run strategic bombardments, Germany could have bombed Baku in 1941. Russian ability to do mechanized war would have stopped in less than 6 months. Soviet union or larger parts of would have fallen defenceless to German panzers.
Ive been studying WW2 for over ten years and yes Hitler had no military experience in warfare. He based his decision on all his previous orders coming true where no one else would dare. Finland war against Russian told Hitler that Stalin's purges weakened Russia..
I also blame his generals for not doing the right thing
Hitler was a WW1 veteran.
He had no command experiences. Once in a while he managed to form and execute a successful plan. With his General's help of course.
The army, 5 times weaker, almost defeated the enemy. It was a brilliant plan, but it failed.
the Germans still had like 800k ill-equipped troops in Prague when the soviets were already in Berlin
He lost the war after his stunning victory in France. Until then he was fairly nervous, grounded, and cautiously optimistic. The planning of France was meticulous to the point of obsession. He was prepared for a real challenge. When it went better than he could have imagined he was on cloud nine. He declared that he had won the war and all that remained was to isolate England by kicking in the door of her backwards rotting ally Russia. He viewed the Red Army as a joke with leaders that wouldn’t be qualified to be NCOs in Germany. In his mind there was no reason to believe that the Eastern campaign would be just as if not shorter than the French campaign. Which is why no preparation was made for winter or the lack of fuel.
Barbarossa was an pre emptive strike
No Hitler could have won the Ukrainians to his side and continued on to defeat Stalin. It is his craziness that made him an enemy for all. The last straw was declaring war on the USA on December 11th, 1941. His fate was sealer that day.
One other, I believe, important cause for WWII is not mentioned: the peace agreement of WWI. It was an impossible agreement, very much pushed by the Brits and the French. I believe this is intentionally. To me this devaluates the documentary greatly. I can easily understand why Hitler came to power, I cannot blame the Germans for that.
Versalles was soft compared to the Germans Brest-Litovsk. Versalles was as just as a peace treaty for a country who loses a world war gets.
Did you know reparations were never paid in full, only one full payment in 1921 was ever made. Versailles as the reason for WW2 is simply not true.
@@andrewjohnston9115 I do. So the French occupied part of Germany and were quite cruel. Versailles is absolutely one of the reasons for WWII. But the French, as usual, will not take any responsibility for this.
@@jorgecas5678you are correct when you mention the 1918 treaty of Brest Livotsk this was punitive indeed, land lost, the loss of the baltic states and Ukraine and a massive pay off in gold marks. Having said that the later treaty of versailles stripped Germany of Alsace Lorraine, the Sudetenland and most damning of all the loss of Danzig. This set the seeds for WW2.
Germany was treated FAR MORE HARSHLY after WWII than it was following WWI yet they didn't feel compelled to launch another war. You're just echoing Nazi propaganda
It is misleading to state that going forward with Barbarossa sealed the fate of the Third Reich. Historian Ian Kershaw writes in his massive and definitive two-volume Hitler biography (Hubris/Nemesis) that not only Hitler himself, but also most of his generals, who were eminently competent, believed that the Soviet Union could be defeated fairly easily within a few months, and certainly before the coming of winter. The reason they believed this was that the Soviet Union was weak, but it turned out that it was not quite as weak as they had believed, and also the Soviets were able to improve their performance, taking advantage of the extra time they got when the German war machine had to stop for the duration of the winter of 1941-1942. The fate of the Third Reich was therefore sealed in the autumn and winter of 1941, not at the start of Barbarossa.
What did a WW1 corporal know about war. Blind obedience to a madman.
But he knocked out France in 6 weeks when they couldn't do it in 4 yrs in WWI? 🤔🤣🤣🤣
Stop listening to what they Tell you and actually Research things YOURSELF,..
It's pedantic and embarrassing~
Don't comment until you know what your talking about.
Akin to America's Republican party slavish worship of Donald Trump today.
@@fringedweller5425 Correct him instead of just spouting off....For example you're.
Stalin told Harry Hopkins September 1941: Germany's power is so great that combined efforts of Soviet Union & Great Britain could not defeat her. However the entry of US could end the war,even without firing a shot.
Hitler attacked Soviet Union in 1941 because he feared the he feared its armament production capacity. In the beginning of 1941,he received a news that one single Soviet tank factory was producing more tanks than the combined German tank production. He attacked when Germans still had technical superiority. If he had waited until the end of 1942, Soviet Russia would have become unbeatable. It is a myth that Stalin would have been neutral. The formidable Soviet military machine could not have been kept idle for long. Stalin was only waiting for the right moment to attack Germany.
He had 4 or 5 months to defeat the Soviets. He came really close, but he probably realized after the counteroffensive at Moscow the only thing he could do was drag the war on for as long as possible.
He lost the war on Dec. 5, 1941 by failing to take Moscow. The next day the Soviets launched their massive counterattack. Yes, there would be more Nazi gains but each one was ultimately pushed back.
Napoleon took Moscow and that did not help him.
No one knew how Barbarossa would play out but most expected Hitler would win. This video is all in hindsight, even Stalin got a nervous breakdown and thought the war lost at some point.
The argument could be made he lost it on September 1, 1939 when he started the war.
Or December 11th 1941 when he declared war on the USA because fighting the The UK and it's British commonwealth and Russia was not enough for Hitler .
The 2,000 (of which 830 bombers) planes he lost in the Battle of Britain lost Hitler the war,.
If he had those planes he would have taken Greece quicker and started Barbarossa a month earlier and would have taken Russia before the winter set in~
Staring Barbarossa a month Earlier would have taken Russia OUT of the War~
@@matthewmatt5285 Even with Russia out of the war. Germany in 1945 would still have to deal with the US A-Bombs and B-29s
Yep. But to see that you have to have 75 years of hindsight.
If Germany had taken England instead of stopping and invading on Russia. It would changed everything. The US wouldn't have a bunch of airfields in England to bomb Germany. Would give him iron ore to build up more war materials then invade Russia. It would probably be a much different history maybe even language we speak today.
Superbly crafted and presented.
We're so glad you think so!
Infact when Soviet agent in Tokyo wrote Stalin about imminent german atrack stalin started abusing the agent saying ask the agent to come back and ---- his mother.......
Because he could not believe that Hitler would decide to attack Russia with such small forces, several times smaller than Stalin's.
No, it was when he decided to stop off "briefly" and easily capture Stalingrad, he lost the war.
Everyone is throwing in different critical errors, but it was a collection of errors, many of which have been said were THE POINT "when he lost the war." All the points I've read could've been "it". I threw another point in here that I had not seen yet. But I think Barbarossa really was the biggest single event that can lay claim to that idea.
He was not even German and how those idiots supported him is crazy.. which they were
I think he was from Queens,
VON OSTRIECH 🇦🇹
Narcissists are great in Manipulating others.
The God made all people from one man, Adam. All people are brothers.
The God saves people by preaching (1st Corinthians 1: 21). He has nothing to do with war.
Unfortunately, the lying and corrupt clirgy is silent about this. They even bless racists and nazis in the name of God.
The problem is that the Devil rules the world. He is a liar and a murderer. This is why deception and violence are everywhere. This is the reason why people cry over stray cats and hate their brothers. This is the reason why Hitler got the power, but Christ was executed as "blasphemer" and "rioter" by denunciation of clergy. This is the reason why the whole world is Sodom.
That's why we have the Gospel about the Kingdom of God. Jehovah will put everything in order. He has anointed the king, Jesus Christ. The dead will rise and we will meet our loved ones again! :-)
Maybe if they were not fighting the Americans and English as well, they could have defeated the USSR
Adolf Hitler couldn't beat a 6 year old who never seen a chess set in a game of chess
Wrong. Look what he pulled off almost taking over the world. Mistakes made stopped Germany.
It's fascinating to me that as long as the military was running the war for Germany they were winning, while Stalin was micromanaging his military and the Soviets were losing. Then they switched: Hitler began micromanaging the German forces after they failed to take Moscow in 1941 while Stalin was learning that he could trust his military leaders. Then in 1943 the factories that had been moved east of the Urals began churning out masses of weapons with which the Soviets destroyed The Third Reich.
I am extremely interested to hear that the Treaty of Versailles had 'dematerialised' the Rhineland at 21:16.
I noticed that as well. That occurred in the film right after the reoccupation of the Saar (shown on the closed captioning as the "czar.") One of the section titles mentioned being caught in a vice rather than caught in a vise.
I believe the treaty of versailles pretty much guaranteed that history would repeat itself...
Hahaha.. yep..I heard it also
Fritz Todt, a German general, told Hitler that the war was lost in early 1942 due to a lack of resources. Todt was aware of the disparity in resources early on, and after visiting the Eastern Front, he told Hitler that the war against the Soviet Union should end if the armed forces didn't receive better equipment and supplies. However, Hitler rejected Todt's assessment and continued the offensive.
The day he lost it was the day he declared war on USA...or the day he split Army Group South into both the Caucuses and to Stalingrad
Well, of course you're right. He misjudged the US as a people and as a nation. Hitler as delusional loon.
But the russians won ww2.😅
when he invaded russia
The video said what it said lol and it’s right
Extremely well done. We know all the facts but rarely have I seen it presented with such accuracy as this video🤌🏾🤌🏾🤌🏾
December 11, 1941. When he declared War on the United States...overconfidence was his fatal mistake after the fall of France. Hitler was a gambler and with Russia rolled the dice. "We only have to kick in the door and the whole rotten structure will come crashing down" The house won...
He messed up the war by declaring war on the USA, whom he had no issues with.
Very good video, I love the reenactments. Thanks a bunch!
Lets us never forget, the real reason why the Germans lost the war was because when Germany invaded Poland from the West, the Soviets invaded Poland from the East, the German and Soviet armies met in the middle of Poland. The Soviets immediately started rounding up the Polish intelligentsia in their area of Poland and massacring them, the bodies were buried in the Katyn forest. When the Germans invaded Soviet Russia, they started off from the area of Poland they controlled and first had to cross the Soviet controlled part. As the Germans were narrowly defeated by the Russian weather to take Moscow, it is likely that if they had started Barbarossa from the Polish border with Russia they would have easily taken Moscow. One question that never gets answered is,'' we all know the UK declared war on Germany for invading Poland yet the UK ignored the Soviets invasion of Poland'' why was that why did the UK not rush to help, ''the gallant Poles"', under the Russian jackboot ?? !
Because Britain didn't have the means to win a war against the Soviet Union.
@@marknieuweboer8099 They could have had Germany and Poland help them against the Soviets. The fact is, Hitler had been grooming Polish leader Pilsudski to that effect, but when he died in 1935 the British told the Poles not to negotiate with Germany on any matters... Funny that the Brits, who after disposing of cousin Wilhelm, would willingly ally themselves in a world war with those that dethroned cousin Nicki... Mmmm!
Never send a Corporal to do a Field Marshals job
Doesn't matter. You don't have anywhere near the petroleum you need for offensive warfare for over six months.
well that corporal conquered france.... field marshals of ww1 never got close to Paris
Unfortunately that is what democracy does sometimes. Weimar Germany was full out of work Prussian Generals, and they have to pick a former Austrian corporal in the Bavarian Army to be their fuhrer. Bad move.
During the first week of Barbarossa, Stalin holed-up in his dacha, terrified that he was about to be arrested and shot by the Politburo for gross incompetence (which is exactly what HE would have done in their place!) Fortunately for him, none of the comrades had the balls.
I can't take any narrator seriously who says 'aircrafts'.
The plural of 'aircraft' is 'aircraft' , no 's' needed!
Hear , hear ! seems to have spread like wildfire from RUclips....
Aircraft’s is proper English if more than one type of aircraft is involved!
When more than one type of aircraft is involved “aircraft’s” is used.
7:10 7:10
Oven if you were correct, which you are not, since this is British English, it’s not relevant. The narrator, whether a human or computer, just reads the script.
I’m with you. Whenever I hear a Brit mispronounce Aluminum I stop being an Anglophile for at least 15 minutes.
The deciding factor was the Japanese defeat at Kahlkin Gol by the Soviets under Zhukov before Hitler attacked the Soviets! Zhukov beat the Japanese so decisively that they signed an armistice and promised never to attack the Soviets again. Amazingly the Japanese adhered to the piece of paper and Stalin never had to fight on two fronts! The Soviet army that appeared before Moscow when the first Germans could see the city was drawn from watching the Japanese from Siberia.
He lost it when moscow became secondary and failed to take it in 1941
Moscow wouldn’t have made any difference strategically. And they didn’t have the supplies or ammunition to sustain a long battle. They couldn’t afford Guderian to lose there and lose most of their tanks and artillery.
Napoleon took Moscow and still lost .
Yes I agree. Vacillating between three objectives was the mark of an inferior strategist. Moscow was the railways hub in a railway country.
Yup. Should have stayed far away from Stalingrad.
The 2,000 (of which 830 bombers) planes he lost in the Battle of Britain lost Hitler the war,.
If he had those planes he would have taken Greece quicker and started Barbarossa a month earlier and would have taken Russia before the winter set in~
Staring Barbarossa a month Earlier would have taken Russia OUT of the War~
In my opinion,Hitler not working out a plan with Japan and Finland was the biggest blunder,if Japan had invaded from the east and Finland from the north,sealed off Leningrad,which they refused to do right from the rip,theirs almost no way Stalin could’ve held out, or maybe no way other than the west putting troops on Russian soil,and Stalin did ask or suggest several times that a few divisions with their own general staff and everything,basically no Soviet intervention at all,but the US and Britain wouldn’t do it and that’s saying a lot on Stalins part,for him to ask a western military force to come to Russia and have no Russian liaison showed just how bad the situation really was,but that would’ve been the end of the USSR then and there if the Germans and their “allies” had actually acted like allies,good thing they didn’t though
Fair comment, but Japan had to capture Indonesia and secure the South East Pacific, just for their oil supply. This meant that they needed to conquer the Philippines, as a transit link and for total control of that region.
China was also a perceived threat, for the Allies to amass forces and attack the Japanese islands.
And Communism was growing into China, so they didn’t want China to become Communist and help Russia.
Remember this, Japan conquered about 1/7th of the entire surface of the globe. They played their part almost to perfection.
The war couldn’t have gone any better for the Axis Powers, up until Al Alamein and Stalingrad.
@@flashgordon6670 well,Japan not attacking the USA would’ve been a big help to the axis but if the Japanese had attacked from the east and Germany from the west and Finland the north,the Soviet union is tapping out more than likely and Hitler would have made sure to gotten ahold of some oil fields,I mean we’ll never know one way or the other but it’s hard to see the USSR withstanding an attack from 3 different directions and across huge distances
Then Japan doesn’t get their oil from Indonesia and the Dutch East Indies. The USA had embargoed oil to Japan and was blocking their route. Arguably it was the USA who started the war against Japan.
@@flashgordon6670 idk man,that’s what I read in David Glantzs book,I would assume he probably knows more about it than me
And no the USA didn’t start the war with Japan,Japan had been aggressive since 31 and the US wasn’t gonna sale ‘em fuel and other stuff so they could keep their military aims intact,you seriously don’t believe the USA started the war with Japan do ya? That’s the first time I’ve heard that one
Not just attacking Russia but declaring war on the world's economic powerhouse. Stalin begged for American assistance i. 1941, even asking that US troops deploy to Russia and fight alongside the Soviets.
As a military strategist Hitler was an idiot. After the battle of France Germany never won another meaningful war objective, Kiev about as close as he came. He only won France because of surprise. No one could believe that anyone who lived through WW1 would ever want another war like it. Nazis lost the Battle of Britain and North Africa.
Stalin couldn't believe Barbarossa because he knew there was no way the Germans could win and he convinced himself Hitler was smarter than that. It was really stupid. The vast distances were just too great and the Nazis literally ran out of gas and everything else. Even had they taken Moscow, like Napoleon they would have found themselves masters of nothing. The Caucuses were 2,000 miles from Germany. No way.
He could’ve defeated Russia with a better strategy.
The decision to invade Russia, from Germany’s perspective back then, was the right decision. It was how they went about it that was all wrong.
They didn’t have enough oil supply and were reliant on Russia’s exporting it to Germany. Russia could switch it off at any time and invade Germany, which its military buildup in the late 1930s and attacking Finland, an ally of Germany, threatened.
Germany tried to bypass its basic oil and rubber supply flaw, by developing more advanced tanks, planes and rockets. But they weren’t perfected and they wasted their dwindling supplies and time on them. Instead of just building the proven weapons. Panther 3 tanks. U boats, 109s and stuker planes. Bc they didn’t have enough oil to feed them.
Or enough rubber for truck tyres, for their logistics.
They needed to amass more oil and rubber, and keep it underground, safe from allied bombs.
Then they could’ve starved Britain imo surrender and used the Royal Navy to help conquer the USA. In exchange for leniency and cooperation with the British.
Germany also needed to stop Britain helping the USA to develop nukes. Then Germany would’ve got them soon, by late 1946, early 1947.
They needed the oil, in the Caucasus region of Russia, to do this. It was a catch 22 situation for Germany. They needed the oil to fuel their weapons and trucks. But they needed those weapons and trucks to get the oil, and defend from potential counter attacks, that Hitler was paranoid about.
They did actually manage to capture some of the Caucasus oilfields. But the oil wells were destroyed by the Russians and losing at Stalingrad, made Russian counter attacks there inevitable.
With a slower buildup and halting at Smolensk for the winter of ‘41/‘42, Germany could’ve succeeded their primary objectives. Blitzkrieg was the wrong strategy, for an area 10 times bigger than all their previous conquests.
When Hitler declared war on the USSR, what that did was to hasten the end of the war, as he then had to deal with two military fronts to defend. …in addition, it helped to reduce the number of American casualties, as Germany could not concentrate it’s entire force on the Western front. But the fact remained, as the US was the first to develop, test and use an atomic bomb, had the collapse of the 3rd reich not occurred when it did, shortly after, the US would have unleashed nuclear hell on Germany….and then it would have been game over, with total annihilation.
Hitler lost the war the second his troops entered Poland. It was only a matter of time before he would be at war with the Soviet Union and the US. He ended up at war with the largest empire in the world, the nation with the largest army, an endless land mass and overwhelming manpower resources and finally the nation with the largest economy and production capacity in the world. Germany was toast from the outset.
So true, no matter how you look at there was nothing they could do to win unless however ,you change one small thing and that is to go as a liberator to Russia. By liberating Russia from Stalin. That's the only way Germany could have won. Economically Germany was doomed from the outset. An interview with Garland started they had lost long before they went to Russia
People forget- Hitler and Stalin invaded Poland together
@@cuts240 actually Britain & France cleverly ignored Russia's later incursion.
Edit: USSR's annexation of not only eastern Poland but the Baltic states.
The Germans lost many of their best soldiers in the futile attempt to take Moscow in late 1941, and lost another very good army at Stalingrad a year later. Both times, the top generals advice to Hitler was to just set up defensive positions for the winter, but he went against their advice. After Stalingrad, the Germans had no chance of winning the war.
If Germany was only at war on only the eastern front the soviets were going to be defeated
10000%~
My family on my father's side were from Switzerland. They saw Hitler as a madman. Had Hitler waited two more years and made improvements in Poland roads bridges, and railroads over time. No one would have been the wiser. Still we all can be pleased he did not.
Glory to 27 million Soviet people who saved us from fascists
🙈
To be occupied by communists?
Hell no, not in a million years.
Communism is the greatest enemy known to man, even today.
...and subjected half of Europe to commie tyranny behind the iron curtain... Job well DUMB!
Not all fascists,
While it certainly wasn't apparent at the time, when Germany abandoned it's nuclear program, it was doomed to lose; Nuclear weapons coupled with it's rocket capabilities might well have won the war.
No, conquering Russia could've been achieved. It wasn't impossible. The flaw was in tying up too many troops for use as extermination squads to dispose of the Slavic & Jewish populations when they could've been put to better use building better supply lines. Not to mention having too many troops tied up in the rest of mainland Europe as occupation forces.
Having too many fronts. Africa, Sicily, Greece, helping the Italy here & there, etc.
That’s reasonable, but it was the lack of oil and rubber that prevented Germany building more trucks for logistics. Catch 22.
His mad strategy nearly worked, with a bit more patience and focusing on proven technologies, like Panther 3 tanks, U boats, 109s and Stukers. Instead of Tigers, jets and wonder rockets, Germany would’ve had a much better chance of winning.
They just needed the oil, to put into the machines that would’ve won the war. Instead of developing risky technologies, to bypass their basic flaw.
@@flashgordon6670 yes, I think rockets, jets, etc development should be for mid term use. They just want a quick wonder weapon to get out of the hell. But it seems the bohemian corporal & Nazi love everything big, massive & wow. Super Tiger, Bismarck, Thor, etc.
perhaps Hitler's declaration of war on the USA was a more critical reason for German'y eventual defeat
History is written by the conquerors.
The history books they study in schools today are completely different from the texts we had when I was a kid. Did the conquerors change?
Correct~
The problem is Devil runs the world. He is lier and murderer. This is the reason why deception and violence are everywhere.
That's why we've got the Gospel about the God's kingdom. Jehovah would put everything in order. The dead will be resurected and we'll meet our loved ones again! :-)
@@AlexejSvirid The Bible says only the faithful will be resurrected.
@@tanler7953 The Bible is an amazing work of fiction.
The truth will never be known. The Victor's decide what history will be. Never the truth.
Will the defeated supply the truth?
1. ATTACKED RUSSIA. 2. OVERSLEPT ON D-DAY...3. DECLARED WAR ON U.S.
He thought by declaring war on the USA , Japan would declare war on Russia and open up a 2 front war for Russia ,,,
No he didn’t think that at all actually. He just wanted to keep the German masses, thinking they were winning. He thought that the momentum would carry them to victory. So he had to portray themselves as winning at all costs.
It didn’t matter if things were going wrong in Russia temporarily, bc their confidence and morale would see them through the difficulties, in his mind.
Remember he was a veteran of WW1 and he was basically reliving the First World War.
@@flashgordon6670 ridiculous!
Japan had more than enough on their plate, you’re ridiculous Shut up!
@@Ben-qm1mv
Not ridiculous at all. Japan had a non-aggression pact with the USSR and while it had done well in the wars at the end of the 1800's it had suffered a bloody nose in the Siberian fights of the 1930's. Japan's main aim was empire in Manchuria and South East Asia.
You have no evidence for your first post, and your insult to FlashGordon is thoughtless and silly.
There would have been a way to defeat the USSR. The USSR had experienced a bloody civil war just twenty years earlier. Stalin ruled the country with an iron fist. He ruled bloodily and was very hated. When German troops invaded the USSR, many residents greeted them as liberators from Stalin's tyranny. Hitler could have taken advantage of that. If the Soviet prisoners of war and Sovjet civilians had been treated well, many residents of the USSR would have been willing to fight with the Germans against Stalin. Instead, the residents of the territories conquered by Germany had to realize that Hitler was worse for them than Stalin.
I disagree that attacking the USSR was the defeat of Germany (or even declaring war on the USA). It was still feasible for Germany to win with tactics. Not taking Moscow in 1941 was a HUGE blow. The failed offensive of 1941 probably sealed Germany's fate (especially since they did not winterize their army properly). However, Germany still had a shot in 1942 and possibly even at 1943 at both Kursk and Stalingrad. After Kursk (and El Alamein), Germany was done.
True, totally agree.
Moscow wouldn’t have made any difference strategically. And they didn’t have the supplies or ammunition to sustain a long battle. They couldn’t afford Guderian to lose there and lose most of their tanks and artillery.
No they lost the moment they invaded Poland. It was just downhill from there. They didn’t have the manpower or resources to fight a long war that’s it. There’s not tactics that can win when you don’t have the men or resources to win one war let alone fighting multiple wars. From Greece to North Africa to Norway and Ukraine Russia and Italy. There was never any truly successful military strategy to win that. This was like a small dog fighting not one big dog but 3 really massive dogs.
@@jordanazevedo5688 nearly all the contemporaries at the time disagree. For example, the US military brass thought Russia would lose to Germany up until 1942. UK, USA, and USSR military experts all took the German threat seriously, that is why they were defeated.
If the German generals were in charge and not Hitler they likely would have, or at least starved the Russian machine of the oil it depended on.
If the Germans had, by an evil miracle, completed their total victory in 4-4.5 months, things might have been different. But the Soviets turned the German war of movement into a war of attrition that Germany could never hope to win. The German logistics fiasco made it impossible. That's why Soviet resistance early on delayed the Nazis long enough for first the mud and then the winter.
Germany could never fully replace the men and material lost in 1941. And logistically could never totally get their act together. Doomed from the start.
Nope............. the war was lost for Germany when they failed in the 1940 Battle of Britain.
Russia effectively included Mongolia too at that time. It would have been impossible to subdue such a territory.
Never really learned as much about history as I should have in elementary and Junior and Senior high School. But what I learned from my good friend Moscow is that we should be thankful for Russia. We didn't really come full into the war until Russia had fought Germany a lot and lost massive amounts of men. Those could have been us men so Russia really did help us in a way that we should be thankful for. Even today there is a shortage of men compared to women in the USSR and even great discrepancies in certain parts of the old USSR.
Of all the countries involved Soviet Russia was the country that lost the most.
If he had waited a few years. Germany would have had nuclear weapons. Before the Russians.
Arguably the day Hitler 'lost the war' was November 8, 1923. Whenever people assert a turning point occurred, the implication is that up to that time Hitler was going to win, UNTIL........
The primary causes of German defeat in WWII was the mindset of Hitler. Hitler made all decisions of any magnitude. Hitler NEVER made a logistic, tactical, nor strategic decision.
Every single decision he made was always political. Whom commands an Army? Political. Who gets supplies? Political. Goering will supply 25,000 tons of supplies a day into Stalingrad? Political. Fight to the death orders everywhere, no retreat? Political. Naming Admiral Doenetz as Head of State? Political. Halder as Chief of Staff? Political.
The decision to hold the men in place and lose in Stalingrad was political in light of the historic macabre use of the reference to that Great Victory he believed would occur soon after in Stalingrad. All his delusions were political.
Hitler died on April 30 1945 not april 14th
Actually he does say 30th of April, in the very first sentence.
“Adolf Hitler died on the 30th of April 1945.”
But you’re both wrong, he actually escaped to Argentina. Watch the documentary film Greywolf and Mark Felton videos Find the Fuhrer.
@@flashgordon6670 You probably believe in ming the merciless too mate. 😂
@@flashgordon6670 Felton does not even remotely say Hitler "escaped to Argentina." I have watched all the episodes, and near the end he offers his conclusion. He states that after the bodes were brought out of the bunker and set alight, someone else moved the remains to another area surrounding the bunker and buried them. They then dressed up two corpses with somewhat close resemblance to both Braun and Hitler (there were multitudes of dead bodies in the vicinity) and buried them in this spot to mislead the Soviet searchers. Hitler was in absolutely no condition to travel anywhere. He was a drug addicted wreck probably also suffering from Parkinsons and with a very short lease on physical existence when he committed suicide.
Everyone knows Napoleon made the same mistake 100 years earlier, but few know King Charles of Sweden made the same mistake 200 years earlier.
An intriguing thing to point out.
But he had anti slavic ideology, whats Napoleons' excuse
@@klausstelzer2778 replace "no one expects the spanish inquisition " with "no one expects the Russian winter"
He lost the war when he decided to start one. Before first shel was even fired.
He didn't. It was Britain and France who declared war ON Germany.
@@davidb2206 Hitler invaded Poland first, not any other person but him (and than ussr)
@@davidb2206 Hitlers war started with his invasion of Poland, France and the UK's declaration of war was the consequence of a war already begun.
It was Hitler who made the decision to attack Britain’s and France’s ally. He was just too cowardly to declare war against us first.
He could’ve won WW2, if he had a better strategy.
The decision to invade Russia, from Germany’s perspective back then, was the right decision. It was how they went about it that was all wrong.
They didn’t have enough oil supply and were reliant on Russia’s exporting it to Germany. Russia could switch it off at any time and invade Germany, which its military buildup in the late 1930s and attacking Finland, an ally of Germany, threatened.
Germany tried to bypass its basic oil and rubber supply flaw, by developing more advanced tanks, planes and rockets. But they weren’t perfected and they wasted their dwindling supplies and time on them. Instead of just building the proven weapons. Panther 3 tanks. U boats, 109s and stuker planes. Bc they didn’t have enough oil to feed them.
Or enough rubber for truck tyres, for their logistics.
They needed to amass more oil and rubber, and keep it underground, safe from allied bombs.
Then they could’ve starved Britain imo surrender and used the Royal Navy to help conquer the USA. In exchange for leniency and cooperation with the British.
Germany also needed to stop Britain helping the USA to develop nukes. Then Germany would’ve got them soon, by late 1946, early 1947.
They needed the oil, in the Caucasus region of Russia, to do this. It was a catch 22 situation for Germany. They needed the oil to fuel their weapons and trucks. But they needed those weapons and trucks to get the oil, and defend from potential counter attacks, that Hitler was paranoid about.
They did actually manage to capture some of the Caucasus oilfields. But the oil wells were destroyed by the Russians and losing at Stalingrad, made Russian counter attacks there inevitable.
With a slower buildup and halting at Smolensk for the winter of ‘41/‘42, Germany could’ve succeeded their primary objectives. Blitzkrieg was the wrong strategy, for an area 10 times bigger than all their previous conquests. The
You most often don't realize how awful these videos are until you hear the AI-generated voice tell you that the Treaty of Versailles had "dematerialized" the Rheinland. It really makes you wonder who is producing these videos.
I like the way the narrative shows how Russia time and again tried to get an alliance with France and Britain against Germany. Just as Stalin wanted Germany and France to fight a long drawn out war, the Western powers were keen on Russia and Germany exhausting their strength fighting each other. This was quite the game of musical chairs.
The Western Democracies wouldn't join with the Soviet Union prior to WWII because the Soviet Foreign Mister at the time, Maksim Litvinov, was Jewish.
@@simonsobo4644 I agree. There was a tremendous rise of antisemitism in Europe following the Great Depression. The public's perception was that Jews were either very wealthy or they were socialists. In either case they couldn't be trusted. There was a general purge of Jews in the Russian Communist Party during the 1930s. Litvinov was one of the last of the high ranking members of Jewish heritage to be dismissed.
Germany lost and the USSR won, but the cost was so high, that you barely can call it a victory. Truly a Pyrrhic one
No it was not Pyrrhic. The Nazis had a plan to exterminate the Slavs which would have been 40 million more on top of the ten's of millions dead from organized murder. And that is not even counting the 20 million dead from the fighting. In other words, the USSR was fighting to avoid extinction of people, therefore they won big even with big costs.
The Soviets didn't have a whole lot of choice, though. They had to give the fight everything they had, or risk defeat and potential genocide. It was devastating to both sides.
If he wasn't so greedy he could have had all of Europe
Let's not be too harsh on Goering . After the victory over France on 1940 , before the Battle of Britain , Hitler told Goering that the war was over , and it was not over . Therefore , Goering acted accordingly, or not .
I would say there were two days......first one is when he declared war on the USA second was attacking Russia.
DEC. 11/1941 WHENHELOST