How was the German Army so Successful at the Start of WWII Against Vastly Superior Numbers?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 15 сен 2024
- Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS®5 and Xbox Series X|S: playwt.link/ti... . Follow the link to download the game and get a massive free bonus pack including vehicles, boosters and more!
This video is #sponsored by War Thunder.
Love content? Check out our other RUclips Channels:
Higher Learning: / @higherlearningflight
Flick Facts: / @flickfacts
Fact Quikie: / @factquickie
Ancient Marvels: / @ancient-marvels
Origins: / @originsofeverything
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
Warographics: / @warographics643
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Into The Shadows: / intotheshadows
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Casual Criminalist: / thecasualcriminalist
Decoding the Unknown: / @decodingtheunknown2373
→Some of our favorites: • Featured
→Subscribe for new videos every day!
www.youtube.co...
Special thanks to our sponsor War Thunder for helping us be able to make such lengthy deep dive videos like this one. Play War Thunder for FREE on PC, PS®5 and Xbox Series X|S: playwt.link/tifo2023 . Follow the link to download the game and not only support this channel and videos like this, but get a massive free bonus pack including vehicles, boosters and more!
Can we get a video about George Beurling the Falcon of Malta or Laurel Canyon Lookout Mountain Airforce Station
What a simple question to answer... The reason that Germany was so successful early in the war was due to superior tactics in use at the time combined with the fact that nobody was really ready for another war.
My Dad was a combat veteran. War video games were absolutely banned from the house growing up and we were not to play them at other people's houses. He said "I lived a war. It was not a game and it should never be a game. It was awful, terrifying and real people died."
I guess if you've never had to witness ptsd in a combat veteran, war would be a game...
@@lizgreer6888 To each their own.... I have served in multiple combat deployments and have seen shit that I wouldn't want anyone else to see, let alone my kids, but I am smart enough to understand that a video game is not real life and mature enough to teach my kids the difference between real life and fantasy. After all, we have Grand theft Auto available, but you don't see a massive amount of car jackings despite how popular the game is. Does anyone ever confuse Donkey Kong for being real?
What rank are you at on WT Simon?
The financial aspect of all this is fascinating and very rarely spoken of. Going from crippling debt and ridiculously high inflation to arming, training, feeding, and clothing a military force strong enough to conquer Europe in so short a time is quite the financial feat.
They should have attacked once instead of twice they might have actually conquered Europe
Not when you can repay that debt by stealing the wealth of your neighbours, have an oppressed population, and an evil, almost religions, ideology.
This is how you most easily take the Domination victory on Deity in Civ VI
At the cost of sustainability though.
Germany attacked when it did in large part because it's financial system would have crumbed otherwise, and during the War it sustained itself by draining conquered territories of all wealth.
Economic growth was actually slower than in neighboring countries and driven by state spending, Nazi German was doomed to burn itself out sooner than later.
The bargain of money includes the Indemnities from The Great War.
My dad fought in WW2 with the 147th combat engineers. He often spoke highly of the german's intelligence & technology.
@@imnotyourfriendbuddy1883 Don't be disrespectful to my great-grandpa he suffered in the gulag after the war.
@imnotyourfriendbuddy1883 wow really disrespectful... even to mordern Germans...
@@Noise-Bomb
did he kill any Ivans?
Weaaaboo detected. German intelligence was famously so good that it failed to detect multiple Soviet armies and thought it was several million men smaller and predicted that the USSR would collapse after encircling its army.
As bad as there morals were, they had far superior technology, tactics, and intelligence. It was a small country absolutely smashing basically the whole world. Bad, but really impressive.
Fun fact that is always overlooked about the early dominant German Army. They took over 500 thousand HORSES into Poland. Most people think of just panzers but early on they had an enormous amount of troops on horses!!!
Actually most of those horses were pack
Yeah for supplies not fighting.
@@kb4903 Nah, there where also many "troop transports" that were large open coach wagons.
because germany was just leaving an economic stagnation and politically motivated dissolution of the former german military. they had to start over from scratch
The Fat Electrician covers this in his video about the last war chief.
One other less talked about advantage they had was the use of radio for interunit communication to coordinate formation movement and tactics. Radio was obviously something every side had but Germany used it extensively on a micro scale. Throughout history it can be said that one of the biggest reasons armies underperformed was lack of coordination and cohesion owing to bad communication😊
Absolutely. This can be Seen best in the eastern Front where Soviet T34 and KV1's were driving around aimlessly while the much inferior Panzer 3 and 4 were outmanouvering them because they can coordinate themselves with their 2 way Radios. Soviet Tanks Had No Radio, the comand Tank maybe Had a Radio Receiver, to get Orders from the top. Funny how this rigid comand structure of the russians can still be Seen in Ukraine today
There was nothing groundbreaking about this, but one of the reasons the French performed so poorly was that they hadn't updated their field comms since WW1.
Grandson of a Waffen-SS Soldier and SS-Hauptsturmführer in rank here. All my other relatives were also Waffen-SS Veterans, some volunteers and some drafted in 1943 when the Waffen SS ran out of Soldiers.
Anyway: The feats and accomplishments of ANY WW2 Soldiers of any Nation and any Group are all to be seen as factual without using it to claim "they were the best of WW2".
I say that mainly because my paternal Grandfather who is STILL alive at the age of 105 was a SS-Hauptsturmführer of the 1st Waffen-SS Division "LAH" throughout WW2 and while growing up (being born in the early 80s) i got to meet MANY American, British, Australian, French and even Russian WW2 Vets who came over in Summer to have a BBQ with my Grandfather and the one thing that stood out to me was that unlike "Online WW2 Specialist Commentators" the actual WW2 Vets who were former Enemies respected eachother in a mature way. There was no "OMG youre so wrong! The Blabla Unit of the Blabla were ACKSHUALLY the best" and other nonsense like you see in this Thread
The Soviets had severe shortages of radios such that for a platoon of six tanks, only one out of the six was radio equipped, meaning that the other five tanks had to play follow the leader and essentially fight whatever engagement as individuals rather than as a team.
This explains why Soviet tank losses in the first 12 months of " Barbarossa" were so severe. During the war entire they lost over 35000 T34 series vehicles to all causes, not helped by terrible staff work, indifferent logistics and supply, coupled with obsolete design, slapdash production values and profound lack of spare parts production, focussed as they were on turning out whole units . During 1941, they rarely controlled the field at the conclusion of an engagement, making recovery of disabled and abandoned vehicles very problematic.
I think one often overlooked or underestimated factor of the early superiority of the german forces was a lack of "leftovers", so to speak. The entire military had to be rebuilt basically from the ground up - no outdated services (like a cavallery with ages of tradition and influential staff) still existed and therefore couldn't seriously hamper the introduction of modern tactics and weapons for fear of loosing their time-honored status (and with it, budget).
Same goes for kit, from simple handguns all the way to tanks and airplanes. There was simply no huge stock of "will do"-weaponry from the last big war that was kept in use due to better successors being deemed too expensive. The german army had the challenge to produce nearly every single bit of kit completely anew, which in return yielded the benefit of having an up-to-date inventory across the board.
This was surely no war-winning advantage on it's own, but I believe it played a noteworthy role in the bigger picture.
i never considered this, very well thought out comment. although germany was far less hampered by world war 1 and the old breed as say a nation like france, they still had problems with some modernization. for example, hitler himself directly turned down the mass production and reissuing of stg-44’s (not what they were called at the time) because he believed they weren’t sufficient. it got to the point that the army working on them had to rename them to the mp43/44 to sneak them through as they were disguised as “just another submachine gun”
You could say the same about the US. General Marshal basically fired all the old farts well into 1940.
the Panzer I II and even III which made up pretty much the whole early Panzerwaffe I would call leftovers from an already bygone era
quite unsuitable for the tasks assigned to them right from the beginning.......at least in shallow theory.....
@@feldgeist2637 Yes, at least the Pz.II was - on paper - totally inadequate as a frontline tank by 1939. However, it was already designed to carry a radio set, unlike most of the other nations models. That's what made it punch way above it's weight class, as it fit seemlessly in the modern doctrine of combined arms warfare.
Looking solely at armor/armament numbers, the french should have wiped the floor with those tincans, which still made up a huge portion of the german forces during the invasion of france.
@@thebeefyjunior There was quite a bit of delay due to incorrect assumptions and personal taste, although some of that came rather later in the war. Not only did Hitler misunderstand the Stg44, the military also put little interest in jet engines. They believed by the time those were ready, the war would already be over, and since the 109 had performed so well in the first campaigns, they thought any fancy new technology would be a waste of effort. By the time they realized their mistake, it was again Hitler who made their lives harder by demanding the 262 to become a bomber, not a fighter.
However, in the early phase of WWII that was not such a big factor. I'd say the neglectance of heavy bombers was the first mistake to really make a difference, starting with the battle of britain.
I think the best answer as to WHY the Axis powers and specifically the German military performed so well in WWII is also the most simple answer: they were the ones who started it.
They started the war and for years they were preparing for THEIR war, while the Allies, although not caught by surprise or were wildly unprepared, were still unprepared, especially for what was to come.
No, that's the public school narrative. It was much more complicated then that
Saying that Denmark capitulated in a day is really rather generous; we were overrun by the Germans in less than two hours, mostly due to it being a surprise attack on a neutral nation that only partially had an expectation of any sort of aggression until a few minutes until the actual occupation occurred.
Dutch: "What are you guys doing here?"
German: "Occupying"
Dutch: "Occupying what?"
German: "You. We invaded."
Dutch: "Invaded? No, you didn't. I didn't hear about that."
German: "Well we did, that's why I'm here."
Dutch: "Pretty sure that's illegal. Hold on, I'm going to go check."
Even if Denmark had mobilised before, they had 0 chance
The germans literally drove into Copenhagens harbour with ships and captured it in minutes.
If Denmark doesnt have naval superiority it is literally undefendable against Germany.
I mean the only danish "victory" during the 6 hours conflict was the danish royal guard fighting of a german attempt to capture the royal palace in copenhagen (they already had captured everything else in the city).
@@noobster4779to
Denmark was the only European country that didn't collaborate with the Nazis, for instance not one jew was handed to Nazis by Denmark.
By contrast Neville Chamberlain,was a secret Nazi, so was Elizabeth 11!
@@noobster4779 There were actually machinegun nests in Jylland (or "jutland" as the english likes to call it), who simply never got the news that we had surrendered, so they just sat out there for basically the entire day and night, dumping ammo. Since Hitler had such a massive fetish for Denmark, however, the invasion was to be "mild", just like the occupation also was, and these danish variants of redneck farmers probably had a field day running the machineguns.
I would also like to add that it was not anything to do with the navy why we surrendered virtually immediately. I mean, germany is the only land border we have. They could more or less just drive. The remaining island-hopping needed.. well, lets just say that our islands are located quite close to each other : P
No, the main killing blow was that when they invaded, they flew bombers over many of our culturally cherished buildings and threatened to bomb our cultural heritage into the ground. That is when the leadership decided that since we could never actually WIN against them, we might as well keep as much as possible whilst losing.
Its also worth adding that the occupation of denmark was a nazi experiment in a softer touch. We took full advantage of that, smiling to their faces, but with knives as soon as the back was turned. Sabotage became the national past-time and we gladly ruined our train network, so the nazis could not use it. It was a very collective effort and the amount of nazi collaborators was very low, particularly if you compare to Norway, which is not the most unreasonable comparison.
It was also by this deception that Denmark obtained a proud record in a tragic discipline. We exported 99%+ of our jews before the nazis could get their hands on them. Again, this was a collective effort that virtually the entire nation was behind. There is a bench in a park somewhere in Israel that they put up as a thank you!
The "thx for saving almost all the danish jews, we will remember your effort with a bench and then start calling you antisemitic later, when you complain about how we treat the palestinians".
It is a very nice bench. I think the israeli stopped cleaning it though.
That bit about the disproportionately high casualties inflicted on adversaries was exactly right, as well as the superior training of German soldiers. They were the best soldiers in the world then, though sadly, in the service of a criminal regime.
I think the NZ Māori battalion or the ghurkhas might disagree. The Rats of Tobruk took everything Rommel had and held firm. The marines on Guadalcanal had to be some of the toughest soldiers in history.
I believe the Germans had a much better understanding of modern warfare much earlier than anyone else. Once the Allies adapted to the new tactics Germany were done
@@thehappymarmot Agreed. It wasn't meant to diminish Allied forces, especially the British, including ANZAC forces. They were terrific soldiers and respected by their foes.
@@peterplotts1238 I saw no slight to anyone just an opinion. I just thought I would add my own take on this!
@@thehappymarmot If I knew how to get to the emojis, I would send you the "thumbs up," but you have the idea. I saw a really negative, i.e., defamatory, video and comment directed at my country (America) on another channel. I returned fire, and my brain had yet to wholly transition to this more peaceful and respectful forum.
@@peterplotts1238 well greetings from Australia and have a great day mate!
Im proud of both sets of my great grandparents. They saw what was happening and decided to leave in the early 30s. It would take years for them to leave but they resettled in the US by 1943. My grandfather's parents had a hard time since their oldest son was in the Hitler youth. Practically kept him drugged or drunk until they were on the ship to the US 😅 they first lived in Florida then San Antonio. Then finally settling in New Orleans. My great grandmother was something else though.. she dipped powered tobacco and carried a double barrel shotgun all while wearing a dress and apron. My grandfather said one of his first memories of his mom was her fishing on the banks of a river and shooting a snake 👀
Bruton's Sweet Snuff? Little orange can, maybe? My grandmother always had hers.
@@jeffduncan9140 Likewise. Their like is not in the world today, and we are poorer for it.
Lmao. Southern people are no joke. The first time I heard a gun go off, I was visiting the family plot in Missisipi when a bass fish started flopping in the distance of the nearby lake. I pointed it out, and my uncle, who's like 50, went "Wait, hold on a minute" and let fucking loose on it's general direction, with 11 year old me right next to him, hardly able to hear now. I'm proud to be an American.
People from this time Period are Something else
@@sir_dreadlord_on_blitz7042 What will they say about the people of our time?
there was a game (actually, *several* games) back in the late '90s for Sega consoles and PC, about fighting the battles of WW2 as either Germany or Britain, throughout the whole campaign.
some were simplified as "move, attack, capture", and some were more complex with transfers of troops back and forth, pre-planning of flights and landings depending on weather, and projections for funding and taxes to make up for repairs and replacements.
most of them boiled down to "It's all fun and games until you need to wait for a supply truck to reload."
that was basically it.... you were good for the first 5 to 10 turns, and if you didn't win by then, you had to put actual planning to effect, bringing up reserves, supplies, upgrades and fortifications.
and, it was all turn-based! you HAD to remember to move the supply forward *EVERY turn!*
it wouldn't be until the mid 2000's with the advent of real time strategy, that you could manage the load of maneuvering and planning all at once.
and even then, it took SERIOUS fighting to outmaneuver and outsmart your opponent, because armies would usually be capped, and whatever total of assets you could field, could be negated by a much smaller force if played correctly.
so, you had to balance might, price and versatility.
Panzer General
I love that there’s always new content on at least one of Simons channels… like I always have something to procrastinate on.
For the same reason the Japanese army was. They were working to a plan while their opposition was trying to figure out what that plan was and how to react to it. Nations that start wars tend to have the initial success. But once attrition sets in it's usually the side with the greater resources who eventually wins. Hence the allies won because they just had more of everything. Bigger armies, bigger navies, bigger air force and greater material resources to create more should they need them. Don't count the Italians. They were just hopeless. Even the Germans had no time for them.
Another advantage for the Japanese was that the troops they faced were little more than police forces to quell local uprisings. Who had probably enjoyed the tropical climes a bit too long. When suddenly a determined, battle-hardened foe appears, bravery can only do so much, when quick reaction honed by constant practice is non-existent.
You two don't seem to know that the only reason Americans used nukes was because the Japanese would have cost millions of American lives if there was an invasion.
You speak as if you've never heard of Pearl Harbor.
And sneak attacks against countries one by one.
They were highly trained professionals with advanced tactics. The Auftragstaktik was groundbreaking and is adapted till today
When your operational objectives revolve around busting communication and lines of retreat combined with encircling, you can turn a body of troops into an armed rabble whose only recourse is to fight to the end or surrender
I'm surprised how little light is given to the German use of artillery in support of movement attacks. What struck me in Gudarian's papers was his innovation of turning artillery fire from an indirect fire weapon for long distance work into a direct fire weapon to tear through opposing armor and formation
Like the 88s?
@@kb4903 I was pulling from deep memory of study in the 90's, but that sounds familiar
Ah yes, Guderian “I invented it all,” lol. Sorry, but yes that was a tactic used even back in WW1 to stop the new British Mk1 and French tanks. Try and look last end of war German Nazi general propaganda that the west spread in the Cold War. Remember that these guys wanted to 1. Cover their ass 2. Show how they could be useful to NATO and claim it was all Hitlers fault they lose.
Guderian's "innovation" to use close support artillery was developed from British tank doctrine in the first world war. He had a bigger stake in the idea of having dedicated self propelled assault guns, the STUG series of fighting vehicles were the fruit of this endeavour, to support infantry movement in attack and defence. The 88s were more "forced" into the role when the Germans met French heavy tanks and as a means to break hard points in defensive belts. The door knocker was no use in this role.
I recommend Dr Robert Citino's book about the development of bewegungskrieg between the wars. Blitzkrieg was a term coined by the English press.
@@kb4903 The use of the 88mm AA-gun for anti-tank duty was not a genius move but something born out of desperation after having witnessed the complete ineffectiveness of their AT-guns against the Soviet T-34:s.
Not since Napoleon has the world seen this level of tactical dominance.
Owh boy i am sorry but nato out performs it now again by a lot
NATO could never operate on that level. Lol, they speak 17 different languages, use different gear mostly, and have never done full scale exercises. Please tell me where that opinion comes from?
@@drmartin5062 this is just too retarded to respond, you're comparing an 1800s general who conquered a bunch of small countries to the most powerful defensive organisation at this current time,
NATO has operated on a greater scale to napoleon, i don't think napolean could have invaded iraq and occupy it for 8 years
@@drmartin5062I've found that when people mention nato and it's military might on the net (especially) they really mean the US. 😂
@@vereenigdeoostindischecomp9932NATO can’t even win a proxy war.
Always love your world war content.
Perhaps we can delve into WWI a bit more here and there. Like how the British executed many of their own men suffering from shell shock. Or how acoustic triangulation was used to hit artillery that was kilometers away
To help put into perspective how massive militaries were back then - the Luftwaffe had 900,00 servicemen and around 4000 aircraft. Compare that to the RAF today that has around 550 fixed wing aircraft and 35,000 personnel. The UK army currently has around 75,000. The German army in 1939 was over 2.5 million. Those numbers are just truly mind-boggling.
Towards the end they got desperate though. My grandpa Friedrich was 17 towards the end of the war and he was just given some things and sent to russia with a metaphorical slap on the back for good luck
After the Battle of the Bulge, the German military potential really was basically spent. 1945 saw a break down of much of what made them so effective earlier on. In any more sane world, Germany would have surrendered very early in 1945 at the latest. Every death on either side after that was completely and totally needless.
In the Adam Tooze book “The Wages of Destruction” he posits blitzkrieg was necessary because of the Germans relative lack of resources, especially fuel. If the enemy had been able to hold out then they would have been in trouble. Also look to the Eastern Front where supply lines became stretched causing the initial speedy impetus to slow, allowing the Soviets to regroup.
The germans also knew about that themself. The guy in charge of making a planning study in Winter 1940/41 about a possible invasion of the soviet union under economic consideration, General THomas, basically came to the conclussion that it was a bad idead because the lack of fuel was so huge and the germans would need to capture the oil production within the first 3 to 6 months. One massive aspect often forgotten is that fuel was not only needed for the german military but for the agriculture production in the occupied area of the soviet union. And germany needed the soviet food to keep its population (and half of europe) somewhat feed throughout the war. This then resulted in the criminal strategy of "lets just take the food and starve soviet civilians in all areas that dont produce enough food locally. Oh and prisoners of war? Lets starve them so we save the food for germans.
Fuel and food were the two most important aspects and problems of germany during WW2. They "solved" one of the problems by literally starving millions all over europe to death.
@@noobster4779 Absolutely. The German Quartermaster General (Wagner?) predicted that Barbarossa would not be able to push, and hold, territory further than Smolensk. Also, German trains supplying the armies in the Soviet Union were using more capacity carrying fodder and veterinary supplies than men, human food and ammunition.
German fast paced strategy existed since kingdom of Prussia. Due to nature of Prussia surrounding enemies and need to beat them fast.
Recommendable literature on this topic:
"Fighting Power: German and US Army performance, 1939-1945" by Martin van Creveld
Why am I seeing Arte Johnson on Laugh-In in a German helmet saying "verrry interesting - but schneaky?
I continue to be blown away by the quantity and quality of material you keep putting out. Do you sleep? Do you have clones of yourself working?
Anyway, I accidentally deleted this post, mid-post, so here goes again.
I had a chat with a Soviet historian who said that Stalin had all of his forces in extreme forward deployment (preparing to invade Germany, ostensibly), like, right up into ox-bows of major rivers and such, and that Hitlet launched Barbarossa and went around them all (and presumably mopped them up after flanking, but my guy didn't say).
In a way this makes more sense in terms of explaining Stalin getting caught with his trousers around his ankles and Hitler's awful planning with no winter equipment and pressing on to Moscow and so on.
Maybe Stalin wasn't taken by surprise as was sailing too close to the wind and was beaten to the punch (by a matter of days?). Maybe Hitler didn't launch the biggest invasion since the Mongols on a whim with poor planning and over-confidence, and slavishly repeat Napoléon's mistakes, as hastily grab everything together so he could take out Stalin's advance forces before he rolled in, and then kept going once Stalin was on the canvas?
What evidence for or against this can you find? Ever since Glasnost, there's been stuff coming out (in Russian) that supports a different view of how things went down during WWII and the Cold War. I'd be interested!
Your comment is extremely interesting and I agree with it completely. This additional piece of information may interest you:
I recently watched a video here on RUclips which stated that Swedish decryption was very advanced particularly at the start of the war (if I can find it I'll post the link). The Swedes were rightly concerned about both Germany AND the Soviet Union. They were working on German codes and passed useful information about Enigma to the UK when Poland was invaded. They had broken the Soviet codes and were aware that the Soviets were planning to invade Germany through German occupied Poland, but we're waiting for Germany to commit troops to the invasion of the UK in operation Sea Lion. Sweden passed the Soviet communications to Germany (and also the UK) towards the end of the Battle of Britain IIRC. Upon learning of this Hitler invaded the Soviet Union roughly 9 months before he had planned to, which was the main reason that German troops were unprepared for the Russian winter. I believe that it was never a priority for Germany to invade Britain as they recognised that a) it would not be easy due to the Royal Navy primarily and b) it did not fulfil their war aims to seize the Caucuses oil fields. Instead Germany wanted the UK and her colonies out of the war through a negotiated peace. This would also ensure that, despite the low probability from the German perspective (I don't think that Japan ever shared their intention of attacking Pearl Harbour with Germany), the USA would never enter the war against Germany as they would be unable to without the UK acting as an unsinkable base.
I personally think that Germany was extremely surprised with their success in France, the Low Countries and later Norway, which diverted their attention from their primary goal of securing an oil supply in the east. (Having to assist the Italians in the Balkans and North Africa also didn't help as Germany had not anticipated this.) This of course was the intention of the UK which realised that although the German forces were the most competent at aggressive manoeuvre warfare, they would ultimately not have the endurance for a long war against the colossal numbers which the Soviet Union could ultimately bring to bear given enough time. The Soviet war machine was pondering and slow to mobilize, but securing Germany's western flanks by taking France and Norway was too time consuming. Ultimately it was IMHO impossible for Germany to wage war on two fronts as we know now, but perhaps they were assuming that the Soviet Union would collapse as Russia did in WW1, which could have been a logical assumption. War is never straightforward as the enemy never cooperates.
For me the information about Sweden's involvement certainly was a key piece of the puzzle of why Germany invaded Russia exactly when it did and why they were not as prepared as they were for every other country which they invaded. I found this revelation truly fascinating.
All the best Ray from bonnie Scotland.
Search for the Swedish mathematician Arne Beurling.
A curiosity about the covert submarine op was that the Dutch company further subcontracted building early prototypes for the Type VII U-boats to a Finnish shioyard _Ab Crichton-Vulkan Oy._
Four boats were built and tested in the baltic. As a war seemed inevitable, Finland bought the prototypes for themselves to create a submarine fleet for themselves.
The subs served with some success over the war, and all survived the war. After the war, the Soviet Union banned Finland from having a submarine fleet, so all but one sub were scrapped in 1950s.
The remaining sub was put on display at a coastal fort Suomen Linna on an island of the coast of Helsinki. The sub is now a museum attraction and open to the public.
This was exceptionally well-written and generally well-done.
Wow! This presentation pulled so much together so quickly. Excellent insights. It would be helpful to have the videos referenced in the last couple of minutes assembled together at the end. Perhaps they are, but I've not seen them yet. Training, training, training. So much to learn, so little time.
this is very interesting didn't know german rearmament actually started with the weimar republic the way the various steps germany took to rearm is well explained and takes away a lot of the mystery (to me) of how they were able to accomplish so much at least initially⚛
To me it is stunning how similar WWII and the Napoleonic Wars were. Maybe in a weird way history kind of repeats
The geography was... identical. 😉
Could it be postulated that the German army was effective at the beginning of the conflict due to the length and scope of its training? But, as the war wore on and the German army sustained extraordinary casualties, that training regimen became impossible to maintain leaving the army less professional and effective?
Exactly
Yes. However the combat effectiveness of most German units was still very high in 1944. They managed to inflict 50% or even more caualties more on the Allies then.
To a degree, but if Germany had been able to sustain a manpower equivalence with Russia in the east and UK/France/US in the west, along with some more fuel, they probably could have held out and forced these countries to the peace table. German soldiers were still extremely formidable even during all the retreating they did in 1943 and 1944. It wasn't until 1945 that they really started to break down more. Overall, German command, be it at a lower level or higher level(even with Hitler crippling this), was still basically operating at or better than Allied level. Pound for pound, Germans were the best military basically all throughout WW2.
@@maynardburger they were on home turf, of course they were going to run out of troops, got greedy going into russia when they did. horrible decision.
It wasn't the tactics, it was the drip.
Absolutely, the drip was unbelievable
Absolutely
Germans always had the best style whether they were winning or not
Nobody talks about the Prussian training model. It was successfully exported to numerous countries before the end of WWI.
Germany also had an extremely experienced leadership due to them gaining a ton of experience against massively powerful armies during WW1
Also, rumour is, they all spent a vast amount of their free time playing this videos sponsor, War Thunder.
@@maxbracegirdle9990 it was clear that german generals grinded a lot of good traits in Spanish's civil war
Brits and Frenchies obviously did not gain any experience during WW1 cause they were fighting not very and for sure not "massively" powerful German army, right?
@@paulie_one_eye in fact ww1 kinda traumatized both of them to the point that they would mold their war industry after it. People say at the start of battle of france, french tanks were better armored. Of course they were. They were supposed to be moving pill boxes. Not to mention, their entire plan depended on Belgian not being overrun like in ww1.
@@kk7324 that has nothing to do with experience gained or not gained during previous war. I’m not discussing doctrine or morale.
In regards to France, one of the key problems they faced was that their defense doctrine called for French troops to be in place in Belgium the moment German mobilization started. Unfortunately for them, the French governments willful ignoring of German seizure of Austria and the sudetenland meant Belgium (and especially its king) had no faith in French promises of support and refused to cooperate with them.
IMO France (and maybe Norway) are the only really impressive win by Germany. The rest of the nations where way outgunned by Germany.
It wasnt a promise of support, it was a promise to fight a war between France and Germany in Belgium, no wonder Belgium didnt liked the idea to turn Belgium into Verdun, and that was long befor Germany started its expansion. Belgium already said no when France wanted to build the maginot line through Belgium.
@@wolf310ii the French and Belgians had a mutual defense pact with a hidden plan of stationing troops in Belgium at the border at the start of a German mobilization specifically to avoid having the war *in* Belgium.
France refusing to aid their other allies led to them opting to try a neutrality approach, which had worked for their neighbor the Netherlands in WW1.
@@ItsAVolcano Even that pact ended befor Germany started its expansion
Heinz Guderian took that straight from Percy Hobarts playbook(he literally had copies of all his strategies and SOPs) and the fact that he wasn't even mentioned is unfortunate.
To be fair, Guderian read everything tank-related that he could get his hands on. He took the best ideas from everything that he learned.
So I take it you watch The Fat Electrician's videos too?
The Hitler's Youth program is another reason as to why German soldiers were more effective. The soldiers had been training and taught skills important in combat beginning around 10 years old.
That's probably true. Children and young people were systematically raised to fight. Whoever sacrificed his life for the people and fatherland was a hero. They also wanted revenge for the humiliation caused by the Versailles peace dictate. I myself have three great-uncles who fell in good faith for the people and the fatherland. The first fell as a paratrooper in Crete at the age of 19. The second fell at the age of 17 as a member of the 12th Panzer Division in Normandy. The third was young pilot 'early 201 years, who had his last action in early 1945 in East Prussia against the invading Russians. He knew it was a one-way operation, a kamikaze mission.
Our flag flutters ahead of us
ruclips.net/video/wbMC0efbdaY/видео.html
Hitler Youth
ruclips.net/video/RmkVHBTSRos/видео.html
Panzer Division Hitler Youth
ruclips.net/video/8JDkdc246QQ/видео.html
Kamikaze song
ruclips.net/video/aBFeR9GUIWE/видео.html
14:25 A warrant officer is not an NCO (Non-Commissioned Officer, which is an enlisted person's rank ). Warrant officers are "in between" the enlisted ranks and the officer corps.
They are more like technical officers. Like helicopter pilots or something. Not in between anything, but definitely closer to NCO because they don't hold a command position like commissioned officers
the fact that over 80 % of the german army in 1939 still relied on horses to move equipment around makes their military achievements even more admirable.
Tanks were in the majority. The horse still pulled the odd cart around Germany. Even WW 1 was mainly motorized.Even Hitler rode a motorbike between the trenches in WW1 as a liaison.
@@johnridgeway5265 you are either trolling or you have no clue what you are talking about
@@weisthor0815 In the First world war Hitler was a dispatch rider and he carried messages to the front. He was caught in a gas attack and was awarded the iron cross second class so my book said that I read thirty years ago . Fact. There were also a lot of pack horses but nothing like the previous war.The statement was horses IN Germany .On the Russian front horses declined rapidly in numbers and a lot were eaten or died of starvation because of the supply lines and winter. Unlike most I don't use Google to teach myself. Thanks.
@@johnridgeway5265 hitler was no rider, he was a runner. you don´t ride through the trenches. he was even awared the iron cross first class later, so your book was not the best, i guess.
and i wrote "still relied on horses" which implies germany already did this in ww1.
and they still did this to a great extend in ww2. only very few divisions were fully motorized.
@@johnridgeway5265Germany invaded the Soviet Union with 500,000- 750,000 horses
You only need to hear Simon’s pronunciation of SKODA to get that lives in Praha
They also blooded number of soldiers using volunteer detachments during Spanish Civil War.
Being the first army to industrialize the use of amphetamines for soldiers and, for example, keeping many of them awake and aggressive for almost 3 weeks straight during the push in France probably helped.
It was certainly becesseary for the 3 day-night nonstop road march to even begin the assault.
Previtin. Lol
One of the reasons which might account for Germany not pushing into Dunkirk may have been that their soldiers needed to rest because the amphetamines had exhausted them to the point that they could go no further.
I never knew the German armed forces was so well trained.
You thought you could take half of Europe without good training?
It’s easier when the soldiers are brainwashed and no is not an option.
@@florianschneider3982 thats why they brutalized the ussr
Prussian discipline, my guy. It's in their blood.
@@PineappleOnPizza69 Rather not. It is because of training. Since Frederick II, Prussian (later German) doctrine put emphasize on individual skill as a force multiplier. German lack of ressources and menpower (esp. in the case of Frederick's Prussia as a surrounded little state) mandated, according to the doctrine, a superior discipline and training in comparison to their enemies who had the advantage of having the numerical superiority.
The whole German strategy of "local superiority", speed of action, quick mobilisation, being efficient with few ressources etc is a thing of century long training and drill, not genes ;)
The organisation of the German regular forces 1939-1945 was named die Wehrmacht and it was split up in the three traditional parts of army (der Heer), airforce (die Luftwaffe) and the navy (die Kriegsmarine - not Kriegsmarinade, as Simon pronounces it) The SS (Shutz Staffel) sorted under RSHA (Reichs Sicherheits Haupt Amt) along with Gestapo and Gefepo both subcatagorized under SD (Sicherheits dienst).
All this just because Simon happens to say der Heer was an alternate name for die Wehrmacht. It was only concerning the landbased troops as these were somtimes referred to as die Wehrmacht by contemporaries.
Germany ...
34 Nobel prizes for engineering,
None for peace ...
Drone king Obama got one, so that shows how much the peace price is worth.
Obama got a peace prize while actively bombing field hospitals and funerals
@@viktorr7115 the fact you choose to parrot the drone narrative instead of *checks notes* criticizing the Obama administration for helping Saudi Arabia create a famine in Yemen that killed hundreds of thousands shows how I'll informed you are.
I do agree him getting that trophy was undeserved. But you're still a shill.
so germany is more honest than other nations
@@viktorr7115dude Henry Kissinger has one, that's a clear sign the Peace price is worthless.
Before watching i'd guess its that the Allies didnt want war (hence Appeasement) where as the German's were driven at least partially driven by revenge. A rolling snow ball of victories....however when stopped, it was difficult to pick up momentum against powerful opponents.
Its a bit like the puncher who needs the knockout punch against a reluctant boxer, if it doesnt ket the KO, then the powerful technician will (especially in this case with America's industrial might) always grind out the victory??? Great series
@28:00 your picture of the Ardennes offensive is the one from December 1944. There was no snow on the ground the first time they invaded.
Sound quality at times suffered from unnecessarily high background music volume paired with the inconsistent volume of the narrator's voice and the frequently rushed pace of the words spoken. This made the otherwise well prepared material noticeably suffer.
Certainly the Panzer VIII Maus DIDN'T play its part! 😅
Neither did the Graf Zepplin!
Wehraboos: The ratte would've turned everything around... and Steiner's counterattack.
Props to Arnaldo for the script. Took me less than a minute into the intro to know that it was written by one of the amazing writers for Casual Criminalist!!
Pervetin and lots of it!
I swear you covered this on a different channel already, but I could be mistaken.
That stuff also helps if one wants to binge-watch these videos for days without becoming tired🤔🤣
The drug excuse is what americanaboos say to slander the German army performance.
I always wondered the questions that this video addressed! I appreciate the depth of analysis rather than simplistic answers...
My wife’s uncle, a rear gunner in Lancasters with 39 missions, so the late 20th century he saw the change in the Uk and always wished Hitler had invaded Britain.
Your wife’s uncle is/was a bit of a fool then 😂
Our whole national identity today is that we stood our ground and weren’t defeated. If he’s talking about the fact that it’s not 99% white anymore then he’s a racist and should steer his hate towards british imperialism rather than defeating the Nazis
Captain of IBS would def have a different connotation today😂😳
Because they were the best trained, and disciplined army in the world, great fighters plus they believed in their country and the ideology of the country. It took the world to defeat these men.
Impressed? Does murdering civilians by their millions also impress you?
@@RomaInvicta202allies did the same especially USSR.
12:10 Training is always the most telling of those inputs.
This is completely correct. In fact, the Germans were not only numerically inferior but also technologically inferior, especially against the French. Unlike the French, the Germans were enormously under mechanized and extraordinarily dependent on cavalry and horse drawn logistics. However the Germans still had better TACTICS, and that made all the difference.
The french had 'supperior' tech?
😂😂😂 🎉🎉🎉
Logistics is what wins wars not tactics, allies could out produce and replace men and vehicles far quicker than the nazi's
@@jim85ps2Most importantly they had enough oil, the most underrated Ressource in WW2 already ...
Sort of. It’s a bit more complex than that. My particular focus would be to emphasise their C2 rather than tactics as such
German combined arms was way more advanced than anything the western allies had. Stuka dive bombers absolutely fcked the allies front line and routed them countless times as panzers also broke through.
Should've mentioned Percy Hobart he came up with the blitzkrieg before Hines gedarion and Hines carried a copy of his note on the topic.Hobart is also the man who built the funnies which were a specialized group of tanks.
Just wondering: Has Simon abandoned the Biographics Channel in favour of putting out more material on other channels like this one?
I’ve noticed that too. Biographics, Top Tenz and a couple other channels..
Germans have Military tradition.. The German mentality: Hard work and perfectionism helped.
I love these lessons. So satisfying to increase my knowledge. My father was just a teenager at the end of WW2 and joined the US Navy right during the final months of the war. He spent his time on a ship but thankfully did not participate in any battles. He was a medical corpsman and treated some of the injured. Even at that level of participation he did not talk about it until the end of his life.
You definitely won't learn anything true about WW2 from this vid. You better read some books and try to think for yourself.
It’s great and refreshing to hear a take that’s not just “THEY DID THE BLITZKREIG ON METH”
To look at the early successes of Germany, I think it is necessary to also look at the support they had from prominent US businessmen like Henry Ford, Nelson Rockefeller, and (rumored) William Randolph Hearst. They weren't alone. Many "giants of industry" in the US liked the idea of fascism, as Mussolini said, the merger of corporation and government.
Not much has changed.
@sean
You forgot Joe Kennedy.
American businesses and businessmen doing business with Communist China today is worse. It wasn't until the end of the war that anyone knew about the Nazi concentration camps. American businessmen and corporations today know that Chinese Communist have concentration camps as terrible as the Nazis were. Yet they still get rich from China. If you bought a Nike or Apple product over the last few years, there is a good chance it was assembled by a concentration camp victim.
US is just as racist, if they had non US neighbors they would have massacred them... Oh wait that's how they started.
Its important to note i think that the “giants of industry” back in the day were scared stiff that Communism would spread to America, etc. The Russian Revolution was in these peoples memories as were the stories of land owners getting lynched on mass. Communism hadn’t been shown to be a sham by history yet. I would imagine that influenced their behavior.
I know that Ford has rightly been criticized for profiting from nazi slave labor but I haven’t heard the argument that the Ford-nazi relation was key to nazi’s early success in the war. Did money from Ford constitute a large portion of nazi funds?
Also, if it’s true that the Hearst-Nazi relation is only rumored rather than confirmed, then I don’t it belongs on the list of things it’s “necessary” to look at to explain nazi’s early success.
For the same reason Napoleon was so successful until he wasn't. Still it was just superior tactics that works every time until you run out of munitions and oil and so on. They really were not successful in naval warfare where they were unequipped in taking on the Massive British fleet where, but were successful in interdiction tactics to a limited degree. The luftwaffe, once again was successful to a limited state. German technology wasn't as good as the Allies elevate it to. Allied air tech was superior in every way aside from Germany's jet technology which was very limited. So yeah, fanaticism and tactics. Moral is a huge boost to any military. and moral is what made the french fold so early.
Sorry they had the best land army period, which is what matters in war.
Allies won because in 1944, Germany army was 80% occupied in the east against Russia.
Had there been no Russian campaign, and hundred percent of German army in France, I doubt the Anglo Americans would beat them.
Poland were actually blunting the German advance with scary effectiveness, but they couldn't take Germany and the USSR.
No..no they weren't. At all. By the time the Soviets invaded eastern Poland on September 17th, the Germans had already besieged Warsaw and the Polish Army was attempting to withdraw to the southeast of the country to defend the Romanian Corridor. I don't know how you can even remotely claim the Poles were successfuly blunting the Wehrmacht when the Germans had advanced over 200 km's within the first 7 days. Even taking casualties into account, over the course of the entire campaign, the Germans suffered 52,000 dead, wounded, and missing. Contrast that with the 875,000 Polish dead, wounded, or captured. By no definition of the word were the Poles "blunting" anything. It was a complete catastrophe for them from start to finish. They just simply weren't prepared for the modern force that cut right through them.
@@ericharrison7518 Because there are German records of their frustrations dealing with Poland. I'm not saying they fought them to a standstill but the Polish action was never about stopping them, it was about trading for time until the French and British held up their end of the bargain, which didn't happen.
Poland was not caught unprepared in the slightest. They knew exactly what was coming, they knew what they had to do, and they even tried to bait the Germans into attacking earlier to try and get--again--England and France to commit.
German soldiers had high losses in Poland, but because they were still green. Also lots of German losses due to friendly fire. Scared German soldiers mowing down own soldiers.
I think the fundamental reason is the professionalism of the German soldier as an individual, which then performed admirably as a whole. This despite not having the best technology (most infanterists we’re not motorised). In the post-WW1, a German general called Hans Von Seekt reformed the German army to make it an elite force. Hitler then inherited this force and expanded on it with much funding. This initial force was absolutely elite, and performed from the campaign of Poland, France, and the early part of invasion of ussr. After that, much of the men were dead or wounded. They were replaced by newer soldiers and the German army especially after 1942-1943 was nowhere near what it was in 1939-1942. You could say the crème of the German genetic material in terms of men were killed in the first 3 years of the war, especially operation Barbarossa. It’s why they even got so far into Russia despite being not well geared for winter. The early German soldiers were pretty much like Olympic athletes in terms of looks and performance.
WW2 in a nutshell
The allies were told X was going to happen
The allies ignored it because "well those Germans are honest fellows"...
Not quite!
They are honest and loyal people. But place a really terrible person in charge, that loyalty can be easily exploited.
If X didn't happen you'd be a starved communist rn with no internet access.
Not really, tgey just wanted to avoid another war.
It was those same honest and loyal people who voted Hitler into power,along with a bunch of S.A thugs.Hitler did not come out of the blue they worshipped the man and all his evil way
I appear to have retained more of my history major than expected when I remembered all these when Simon started this video 🤣
germany had radios in a tactical level. their tank org was concentrated rather than spread out
oh yeah, radios... yes... that must be it. All right tho, now everything is clear for me, thx.
Think of it as a rubber band, you can stretch the band pretty far when pulling it 1 way, but don't get the same distance when you stretch it 2 ways... Like Germany with their tactics and supplies, was doing fine when just fighting the West, but Hitler couldn't stretch his band the same distance when he tried to fight the Soviets ON TOP.
Imagine a Germany where where hitler doesn't meddle, where they focus on britain before invading the ussr, where they start developping a nuclear weapon early, where they drive the BEF into the sea instead of halting, where göring is sacked,... Frightning what could have if they weren't so incompetent. (Speaking with hindsight vision ofcourse)
And where the Germans didn't declare war on the US when the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor.
They lose. Whenever the rest of Europe teams up because 1 country is going crazy. It always wins. Same with Nopoleon.
They would still had material and fuel issues.
@@mrhumble2937Napoleon and Hitler were defeated by the same enemy, General Winter. Neither ever recovered after facing the Russian winter
@@mrhumble2937 If you destroy the BEF in 1940 and follow up with early developed nukes during the battle of britain, the UK would have folded. That first week of Barbarossa where Stalin had a breakdown and just sat around for days doing nothing and you dropped some nukes on major soviet cities, they wouldn't recover from that. And than hitler just doesn't declare war on the US because of japan and bam, you just conquered Europe.
IIRC the term 'blitzkrieg' was actually the invention of a British journalist who having realised how fast the Germans attacked wondered what the German was for 'lightning war', so it was initially just a journalistic sound-bite.
The reason why Blitzkrieg warfare was so good in WW2 was because it was a NEW style of warfare.
Mechinized infantry was new,
Tanks were new,
Combined arms involving aircraft was new.
Lets also looked at the W/L for blitzkrieg.
Chekoslavakia win
Poland win
France W because of political infighting and poor leadership.
Greece L due to terrain
Britian L in Africa supply chain isdues
Russia L until winter and supply chain issues.
The US L due to massive discrepancy in production.
The only reason why Blitzkrieg was so effective was because it was untested and therfore an unknown factor.
Try a Blitzkrieg today and its in theory no where was effective
....... oh wait, Russia did annnnnnddddd.😢
Perfect training, solid discipline, unshakeable determination, and loyalty driven by a totalitarian regime. The German military was definitely way ahead of its time in the late 1930s. About that topic, I'd also highly recommend Liddel Hart's "The German Generals Talk" book. It sheds light on events regard of the early victories of the Wehrmacht and future defeats.
Not first!!!!! The British, Belgians and French made too many mistakes and in the East the Germans had help from the USSR which also invaded Poland as well as giving them vital supplies. The Germans weren't better, they were lucky.
One of the biggest reasons they did so well is the most overlooked one. They grew good soldiers. The Germans before the unification had been small kingdoms who lent their young men as mercenaries. For hundreds of years that was the case. Then enter a leader who started grooming children to do combat. Their Boy Scouts impressed the US Army enough to say that those German kids were better in the field than their own troops. That was in the mid 30s. Good training supersedes everything. It allows you to function as a soldier in the most adverse conditions. Because to hold a defensive position it takes smarts, ammo, food, and man with a resolve holding a gun. To take that position it takes 3 men to dislodge one. The majority of this war was fought without armor present. There were 3 million men going into Russia. The tanks used at the start were no better than the Russian ones. Russia was so immense that infantry rarely got armor support. The Germans used their armor for breakthroughs. The infantry dealt with surrounded troops while the tanks went to the next hot spot. The problem was Germany was at war with the entire world. Any other army under those circumstances wouldn't have lasted that long.
In the Silk Roads by Peter Frankopan he suggests that because the Germans lacked food supplies at home, they planned to essentially feed themselves by looting farms on the way east, but this didn’t actually work and they lacked the supply lines and money to get enough food to the army
whats often overlooked with the appeasement policy is, that, while undoubtedly unethical, dishonest and far from an elegant solution, the western allies enacting said policy werent really believing that if they gave hitler enough leeway in annexing his neighbors he would at some point just be satisfied and stop invading to become a productive and friendly member of the european family, rather had they been hesitant to accept the fact that another big, big war was looming on the horizon and therefore needed to buy time through not taking action until they were at least somewhat ready to face the third reich (even though, as became obvious in 1940, they still werent ready enough in the end lol). so yes, while britain and france kinda fucked up in that regard, after failing to act and take measures in time, appeasement was the most sensible and viable course of action they could take given their precarious situation. at least thats to my understanding, feel free to disagree and share your take ! :)
It started out like that for sure, but at some point both Britain and France realized that N. Germany wouldn't stop, and they _did_ begin to prepare for war again. But they dragged their feet (not helped by the fact they'd waited too long to remobilize) and were still stuck in the previous conflict mentally, so even though France had the most powerful army in Europe on paper, they were unprepared for the way the Germans waged their war. If France had been better prepped the war might've ended in 1939, when they "invaded" Germany while the army was in Poland. Just... so many opportunities to stop them and the Allies didn't take any because they didn't want another Great War, leading to a much worse one.
@@Telcontar86 well yeah, that's what I meant to say, they began preparations way too late
The chamberlain part of Churchhills government wanted to do a peace deal with Germany after dunkrik
Churchhill over ruled them
Germany isn't and wasn't "One small country."
It had a MASSIVE population of 70 - 80 million people in the 1930s. At the height of Germany's military strength, it had over 10 million men in its armed forces (though this included Czechs, Slovaks [or dare I say - Czechoslovakians] and Austrians who were drafted into the German military, not to mention the forced labour imposed by Germany upon conquered populations. While these slaves didn't serve in the military directly, the labour they provided meant that a German or an Austrian working in a non-military field could be replaced by slaves, thus freeing him up to join the Wehrmacht/ etc). There aren't many nations that could mobilise so many men!
2 words: German Engineering
Blitzkrieg is the Allied name for what the Germans called schwerpunkt or hammer point which sums up the idea to hit hard at certain points.
Basically, Germany prepared for war while the allies didn't. This is why Germany had the advantage initially, but lost it as the allies switched to a war footing.
This is complete bs. The British and French prepared for war in the 20s and 30s already.
One factor that I think may have been overlooked was the overall willingness to fight on each side. Though it is kind of hinted at in the video.
Most of the world still remembered the horrors of WW1 and tried doggedly to avoid it. This led to the years of appeasement and then the delays of the allied forces to react once fighting broke out.
This also, In my opinion, led to allied troops being poorly trained and motivated to fight. After all WW1 was supposed to end all wars. Why maintain a huge expensive military anymore?
On the other hand, the Germans were angered by the punishments brought in by the Versailles Treaty and blamed all of their hardships post WW1 on those that won and inflicted the treaty on them. To them, the early years so WWII were justice for all they had suffered. Therefore, unlike the allies, they were highly motivated to fight for their homeland.
The Germans never faced vastly superior numbers at the start of WWII. They greatly outnumbered the Poles and attacked from Germany, From Czechoslovakia, and from the North out of East Prussia. The Poles had 39 Divs, the Germans, 59, the Soviets, 34. Three German divisions attacked Denmark. The Danes had two divisions, but they were not mobilized. Norway had six divisions, but they were not mobilized and only part of the Norwegian 6th division managed to mobilize, before quickly surrendering. Holland, with 10 divisions, was attacked by 29 1/2 divs, three of them armoured. Belgium, with 22 Divisions, faced 45 1/2 divisions. The French and British armies had 87 Divisions, with 22 in reserve, 109 total. The Germans had 94, with 42 in reserve, 136 total. For the invasion of Russia, German, Romanian and Hungarian Divs totalled 3 million Men. The Russians had 2 million in the Western Military districts. It was the Germans who had superior numbers, and in some cases, were vastly superior.
Lets not forget Russia invaded Poland from the east too. That combined with fact Poland was handicapped by their alliance with UK and France and was forbidden from offensive manouvers in fear of breaking the defensive pact. 😂
You list shows that you do not know what you are talking about.
Take the Western Area. Germany against Belgium, Netherlands, Luxembourg, France, UK.
The Western allies outnumbered the germans. What you list is Germans against Netherland, against Belgium, against UK etc. This is called defeating in Detail. The germans had a larger force concentrated at points of efforts to avoid the Western allies to consolidate there whole power. Subsequently one piece after the other fell instead facing the combined power.
Furthermore your numbers seem really questionable as I read from other sources that the germans in the attack movement (not talking about reserves in Germany who did not take part) outnumbered the french only after dunkirk.
@@MasterFeidn Why are you totalling the ally numbers? The entire point of the Blitz was to never face them all in one place.
@@paulszymanski2513 exactly you are right.
Hence the list of jayharper is pointless. It is like you would say Alexander the Great had the higher number of men during the battle of Gaugamela as his riders outnumbered Dareios III in point of interest and you only compare the part of troups which are in these various small skirmishes - and additionally throw reserves into the mix which not even took part.
Or take the famous battle of leuthen were at the point of clash the prussians outnumbered the austrians although the austrians had double the amount of men in total.
The goal was to defeat the various part of the opposing army before the other could react.
Sadly that led to tragedies like the bombing of Rotterdam as speed was of essence.
Exactly how the german did it with there numerically smaller army at various battles.
@@paulszymanski2513 I didn't forget Russia. That's why I included their 34 known divisions. If Poland had engaged in Offensive action it wouldn't have changed anything, because they were greatly outnumbered and attacked from all sides.
Had some old videos of yours pop up on my recommended, I knew something was very off, but I couldn't place it at first, it's the beard, younger Simon was a cursed egg
I think if Hitler had stopped after taking France the world would be a considerably different world then it is today.
“We defeated the wrong enemy.” General George Patton
I don’t think he could. Hitler’s main desire was conquering the east, getting rid of the Slavs there, and settling it with Germans.
No, ideology trumped logic every time. The Nazi economy couldn’t survive without war. Read “Vampire Economy,” the reich was built by stolen gold and material from all conquered countries. They didn’t believe in industry for trade but Autarky, which means in long term stagnation…. Look at Argentina for modern example.
Your quote doesn't make sense. Patton is conceding that BOTH the soviets and germany are enemies, so that implies the US would defeat both
@@Vandelbergernonsense. German economy was a powerhouse. Zero unemployment and thriving industrial base.
Difficult to say. I think Stalin would invade Germany if Hitler just sat on his laurels.
WOW! All I can say is ...WELL-DONE!
They were all homogenous, with one goal, one mission, one oath.
We say things like diversity is our strength. Let’s hope all those navy ships with 40% women don’t ever have to fight China.
That helped but don’t underestimate German training. Nearly all countries Germany fought were homogeneous but didn’t have same performance as Germany. If you know the Prussian attitude and precision, there is something to it that’s special.
I mean, I'd hope to not have a deadly naval conflict regardless of the percentage of sailors by sex.
Heinz Guderian, the so-called "architect of the blitzkrieg" actaully got his battle strategy from British tank commander Percy Hobarth. Hobarth was the first to come up with the tactic of using armored divisions to pierce through enemy lines and encircle them with a pincer maneuver. He was unpopular with other British officers sonthey dismissed his ideas, but Guderian allegedly kept copies of every paper Hobarth had ever written and used his tactics nearly idemtically to how they were thpught up.
Calling Germany a small nation is a very American thing
I find it it crazy that my home state of texas alone, is bigger than alot of European countries.
Germany was nearly twice more populated than france at the start of ww2. It was the demographic ogre of the early 20th century, just like napoleonic france was the ogre of the early 19th
And its incredulous even by the standards of the time. Germany had a population of 85 million, the USA 140. Germany had an ocvasionally higher GDP. It was the fith most popolous and third most powerful single polity in the world.
Americans think just in terms of territory size which is just empty. But Germany is a big nation just as to what it can do with its size. It’s a powerhouse of industry and know how.
Literally a UK based channel lol
Integration of army and airforce operations…Spanish civil war proved a testing ground for tactics and equipment meaning they were superior at the start of the war …..also psychological control of the state since 1933 meant the German people were more prepared for ruthless action ..
Meth.... the answer is meth....
I agree...it's documented that they took drugs that made them be brutal and non sympathetic. It would also help feel like super heroes☹️
Germany's version of what we call thunder runs now
I like the Germans of WW2. They played a crucial part in history's most interesting event AND they were the inspiration behind many of the great villains we have enjoyed over the years. Some say that attacking the whole world is stupid, I call it a great tale!
Most sensitive WWII enthusiast.
they were also based, unlike the gen Z creeps today
@@Blox117 15 million civilians methodically exterminated is 'based', huh?
@@ROFLtheWAFL they didnt want to fight for their freedom
I love the videos in this channel though i wish you'd start putting English captions since the auto generated one is not Reliable.
Get a decaf for once.
Despite the Russians shortcomings, Gen. Guderian was a formidable foe. He literally wrote the book on tank warfare, in fact he spent most of the 20's and thirties developing what had amounted to a curiosity during WWI to the mechanized cavalry we know today. Had he not been hamstrung by Hitler's meddling, who knows what he might have achieved.
In many ways, we have Neville Chamberlain' s appeasement policies to blame for enabling Hitler to get the successful start he did in the 2nd WW.
Well Done Simon that was a lot of information in 40mins
Whilst I've thoroughly enjoyed many of your videos, I find myself questioning this one.
How can you possibly surmise WW2 in less than 40 minutes?
This was informative, though brushes over certain aspects as if they didn't happen, or at least had no bearing.
I'd be interested to know of your researchers and where they get their information from, as this video is something of a step away from mainstream in its content. I do hope you fact checked it all!?
Good to know appeasement hasn’t gone out of style.
Mostly an extremely rare constellation of factors that could be best described as luck.
The germans have placed themselves into a situation, where the only way victory was at all probable was through strategies everyone else discarded on experience, and these strategies have turned out to both be more succesful than anticipated, and the enemy less adept at countering them than they ought to have been, and lacking the strategjc initiative to call the german bluff.
This is not to diaparage the absolutely astounding organuzational achievement of the blitzkrieg. An operation of such scale with such complexity has never yet been replicated since by any combatant in any conflict, and it could have collapsed a million different ways if not for the very smooth planningof the affaire, but if that shows anything at all, its that it was an all or nothing last ditch move of desperation.