More like let the soviet peasants do all of the final grunt work so that we can weaken their position and wont immediately turn agaisnt, as well as give us time to better position our armies
Germans generals defending against Soviets: "we shall consider our job done if the Americans hit us in our backs" Eisenhower: "I am about to destroy this man's whole career by simply not showing up."
Those fascist pigs butchered our families and friends! Let’s go to Berlin and burn all those goose-stepping bastards to the ground! NOT ONE STEP BACKWARDS, COMRADES!
Pretty much, they were betrayed by Germany and they brutally decimated the country and the Soviets took heavy losses (many civilians as well) until they were finally able to push them out and took the fight back to Berlin.
@Sakusha Durante so... The nazis invade nearly every country in europe, declarations from hitler calling slavs subhuman and should be destroyed, many scholarly resources and historical documents compiling sex slavery, murder and mass executions of entire groups of people. Maybe you can add to the record by acknowledging not just soviey war crimes, instead of espousing neo nazist thought
zombeak I’m talking about the scariest thing a German Soldat can ever hear. An Ura rush is when a fuckton of Russian soldiers roar in fury as they charge vast swaths of land. No matter how much bullets you’ve spent, you will always fall to an Ura rush. The joke is to show that the onslaught of Russians have arrived in Berlin, and how screwed they are.
The Allies did not face such brutality from the Germans than the Russians did, the main contributors, the UK and US, weren't invaded on home soil so wouldn't be as furious with the Germans as the Russians were and as it was a war of annihilation, the Soviets were furious at the German invasion and wanted to be repaid in blood. Berlin, despite not being a strategic objective, was the symbol of the Nazi ideology that had wiped millions of their people from the face of the earth, they were going to capture it, at all costs.
FrogChip thought the capital where most of the buildings were intelligence and other war related departments were stationed would be a strategic zone/target
The Soviets already invaded Germany before WW2, FYI. They tried taking over Germany and started the German Revolution of 1918-1919 and they failed. Then they invaded Poland and started the Soviet-Polish war...and they failed again.
Wildland Firefighter the Soviets were furious that the Germans had broken the NAP they had both signed and committed to, and also the genocide of the Slavs
@@wildlandfirefighter5656 what are u talking about wasn't soviets invasion, but uprising of german's communists. The Spartac's uprising, if i'm not mistaken.
@@barthill9578 USSR: Instead of caring about our people, lets sacrifice millions of our soldiers and civilians and get our asses beat, while the allies destroy Germany and the Japanese.
I would think that the misconception that there was a race was probably created most by the soldiers on the front lines, whom were unaware for the most part of strategic-level decision-making while at the same time acting as a sort of massive rumor mill. I would guess many soldiers, if asked, would probably have thought that there indeed 'racing'.
True; Berlin or Bust was the motto plastered everywhere as soon as they got off of the beaches. Eisenhower favored a broad front strategy to begin with, as a targeted thrust could be enveloped and destroyed. Patton literally ran ahead of his supply lines and was cut short in the south while Montgomery's operation Market-Garden fell flat on its face, and was described as trying to push a rope through a needle. Even Hitler in the Battle of the Bulge suffered from the same strategic fallacy. And Eisenhower knew that US troops would suffer heavy losses taking Berlin and that Japan was also going to be a costly affair. So it was basically decided that Stalin would take Berlin, and that the Western Allies would take everything else.
Even that notion was an afterthought. They were mostly focused on getting home alive. Western troops were keen Soviet fans until the job was pretty much done and mass surrenders gave them room to think about other options. The notion of opposing the Soviets was viable once the Nazi scourge was tamed
When I read in the book “Hell to Pay” on the invasion of Japan, it said that the United States started redeploying troops from Europe before Germany surrendered to train for the invasion of Japan. Wasting men taking Berlin that would be needed for Operation Olympic was never an option. Especially because the U. S. only had around 90 army divisions.
An American army division was 2 to 3 times larger than a German or Soviet division. The 90 division gamble simply capped the number of divisions raised, not the amount of men assigned to them. The reason why the Western allies didn't take Berlin is because it was to be in the Soviet zone at war's end and wasn't seen as an important strategic priority compared to the Industrialized Western section of Germany... Which was far more important. Take the Ruhr and you take Germany. Also. The US had a smaller ground army because it had such a massive Air Force and Navy. You don't need a 6 million man army when you have bombers smashing the enemy's Industrial base and population centers and your tactical air Force is pounding it's ground army. That's why the P51 and P47s were the best tanks of World War 2.
An American army division was 2 to 3 times larger than a German or Soviet division. The 90 division gamble simply capped the number of divisions raised, not the amount of men assigned to them. The reason why the Western allies didn't take Berlin is because it was to be in the Soviet zone at war's end and wasn't seen as an important strategic priority compared to the Industrialized Western section of Germany... Which was far more important. Take the Ruhr and you take Germany. Also. The US had a smaller ground army because it had such a massive Air Force and Navy. You don't need a 6 million man army when you have bombers smashing the enemy's Industrial base and population centers and your tactical air Force is pounding it's ground army. That's why the P51 and P47s were the best tanks of World War 2.
Actually that explains a lot about the German war effort. Seriously ask pretty much anything about WW2 from the German perspective the answer is often. They have no oil.
Actually it wasn't really Human wave. the high Soviet losses were due to poor commands. The purge in the Red army greatly reduced the number of experienced commanding officers. So the Red army had to promote young inexperienced men into CO posts. And Stalin never expected the Nazis to attack and he thought that they would keep their word and follow the Molotov Ribbentrop pact. The Soviets weren't prepared.
@@Orneyrocks1609 No it wasn't. It was called ,,deep battle" (english translation duh) and it was anything but a human wave doctrine. It was much more similiar to modern bewegungskrieg (blitzkrieg/mobile warfare). That is in its use of tanks and mobile infantry. But blitzkrieg rellied on initiative on a individual level while the soviets more on planning. (you know the whole operational dimension of warfare as we know it today) So please next time don't use HoI4 as your source of information. No hard feelings have a good day.
Ik I'm being a smart ass here, but starting 1944ish, the Soviets were having serious manpower shortages, something that started even back in 1942, but wasn't as serious of a problem as it was 1944-45.
If you read Eisenhower’s autobiography of his time during WWII, “Crusade in Europe”, he claims that he wanted to push further but felt restricted because of the political deal reached between the West and Stalin regarding the division of Germany
Perhaps instead of Berlin and Prague like this video mentioned, he didn't want to lose allied lives taking Eastern Germany since it would have all gone to the Soviets anyway as decided at Yalta.
I read somewhere that the strategy of German generals at that time was basically to prevent being captured by the Soviets and be captured by the West instead. My guess would be that it was obvious to Isenhower and he didn't wanna give them the easy way out.
@@MoffatLee I am also convinced that this is the case as well. There really is no point rushing when the region will be given to the Soviets anyway. And besides, during the run up to the end of the war, many soldiers were less aggressive because they don't want to die or be maimed before the war's end. I am also speculating that there could have been supply issues on the Allies seeing as that their supply had to be shipped then transported by land as opposed to the Soviets who only had to deal with one mode of transport (and they captured many rails in the East as the Germans retreated which explains the speedy Soviet offensives after Bagration). Rails on the West, on the other hand, had been obliterated by Allied bombers to prevent German reinforcements but this backfired on the Allies as they captured more territories and they themselves had to use the very rails the bombed to transport. Slow and methodical approach by the Allies was probably the only way to deal with supply issues and resulted in the Allies slow advances.
Allies: we should go slowly and steadily to reduce casualties Stalin: OK so here is 2 million men go whatever you need to do if they die just get more from the gulags
@@greggsiano5920 actually, the order was aimed at officers, so that they wouldn't retreat without autorization. This was actually a smart move, because it meant that officers needed to coordinate retreats between them so that gaps in the line wouldn't open up. Imagine if an entire division retreats and lets your division get encircled because they leave a gap in the formation... This was purely a tactical move, and a smart one at that. Rank and file soldiers caught running were usually only scolded, while officers were usually punished via salary cuts, demotions or, in ~5% of the cases, a free trip to a penal battalion. Only about 1.3% of people caught running were executed. Why waste manpower when your country has been razed to the ground and you need every soldier available to be able to fight the german onslaught? I'm sorry, but please do your research before you comment. If you'd like I'll mention my sources. Also, the USSR did not use human wave tactics. They actually used a blitzkrieg-like strategy from mid 1942 on, which basically dictated: concentrate all your armor in a small point only about a km wide and some soldiers to mop up the threats tanks couldn't deal with (hidden foot soldiers with anti tank weapons). Then, a supply line would be quickly secured and the enemy would be forced to break formation and abandon the field or risk having a huge gap in your formationa and being encircled. When applied correctly, which to be fair it often wasn't due to the inexperience of officers at the start of the war, it'd prevent a huge number of casualties in the long run, since attrition would not come into play. This was not ideal, however, since the fuel needed to sustain the advance was often lacking due to bad roads in the winter or when the supply column was ambushed, so the advance was sometimes stalled. This occurence was rare, though. This tactic worked great in the summer months when the roads were of good quality. What's genius about this tactic is that a soldier doesn't need to be in an exact position in order for the tactic to work, so to a soldier, what this means is just that you have to push forward behind the tanks and await new orders. This made it so that soldiers needed little training to use the strategy effectively, and only the officers and generals needed to be competent, since it required very little coordination on the soldiers' level.
There's something very important you are missing out on. By the time of the early spring 1945, the German resistance on the Western front was greatly diminishing with many soldiers simply surrendering to the Allies. They knew that they would be treated much better if they surrendered to Allies, as opposed to the Soviets. German soldiers were well aware of all the crimes that have been committed on the Eastern Front. So, they were pretty much holding to the last men, whereas on the Western Front, the "last man stand" were much less common. In addition, there were more German troops deployed on the Eastern Front. For the obvious reasons. Allied forces were indeed thinking about reaching Berlin, as evident from the Churchill's letter. However, Soviet success and the consequent encirclement during Battle of the Seelow Heights predetermined this question. Great video, though. Congrats on the monetization, btw.
From my limited reading, I was under the impression that Eisenhower resisted any drive toward Berlin - even assuring Stalin - in order to preserve the fragile alliance
Allies: Lets wait till the last 30 seconds to storm them. Soviets: Rush B Berlin don't stop, if any of you cowards step back i'll make you mine Uranium with your bare hands.
Reading about the mass rapes of German women during the Soviet invasion of German heartland, I'll indeed agree that they "got some" (I don't condone it, I'm just making a note).
@@zippyparakeet1074 can you realy blame them after the s*it Germans did to them. If you were watching your friends and family get killed, your people turned into slaves you would exact vengance in any way you could against your mortal enemies. That beign said i dont support that behaviour but i can understand why...
I was told by a veteran: in the US side 30th infantry that they really hardly met any opposition on their way to Berlin. He explained it as a really annoying walk, openly knowing that the Soviets were getting all german bits.
One thing to consider: Eisenhower did not have troops to lose. In March 1945 he was no longer getting replacements from the US, they were all earmarked for the Pacific and the upcoming invasion of Japan (Kyushu) in November 1945. In addition, his army was going to be losing 1/3 of his divisions in order to ship them to the Pacific to take part in the second invasion of Japan (Honshu) in early 1946. Source: Hell to Pay, Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan 1945-1947.
Omar Bradley wrote in 'A Soldier's Story'' that Ike didn't want to incur casualties to gain territory they'd have to give to Soviets. He was also worried about Allied and Russian armies intermingling risking strife, so he and Bradley decided to stop at the river Elbe, and keep the river between allied and Russian troops
1:53 lol you got me there. I honestly though demonitization had gotten so bad that now learning about history in this channel will be just as long and conplexed as the amount of time we took to learn about history in High School.
Essentially, Batista was pretty unpopular, and the anti-Batists forces were very charismatic and decisive. Additionally, Batista made various blunders which he could've used to crush the rebels before they could do anything.
I mean the soviets had how many more troops available to them being the fact they are literally a couple country’s over... While the US is thousands of miles away and needs countless ships and logistics to bring small amounts troops over... Might have something to do with it..
Stephen Ambrose wrote a small book on this topic, titled Eisenhower and the Decision to Stop at the Elbe. He stated several of the points made here, and added several other military reasons for Ike's decision. One was that the war with Japan was expected to go on for about two years, and that the US might need to transfer soldiers from Europe to the Pacific, and he needed to conserve soldiers for that fight. Another reason had to do with the possible problem of "friendly fire" casualties when American and Soviet forces finally met in Germany. He needed an easily recognizable border between the two, so that each would be more likely to know that the forces in front of them were no longer German, and should not be fired upon. The Elbe River provided an ideal border, and we stopped there and waited for the Soviet troops to appear.
It is worth adding that by this stage in the war Britain had pretty much exhausted its manpower reserves and there was a reluctance to participate in operations which were likely to incur high casualties as they were becoming increasingly difficult to replace. In the UK all men between the ages of 18 and 40 were called up provided they were fit and not in protected industries, that made up about 33% of the male population at the time, but that was only around 7.5 million available men and by 1945 5.5 million were already serving in the armed forces and nearly 500,000 had either been killed, injured or captured earlier in the war. By this point in the war the UK was disbanding and repurposing troops from all sorts of other units to replace troops in Europe and Burma (for example 35,000 men from the RAF were retrained as infantry, Artillery and AA units from the UK were being retrained since the threat of air attack had gone) but costly campaigns likely to result in tens of thousands of losses were no longer feasible for the UK. In theory the US could have fought to capture Berlin alone but it is likely the UK would have felt compelled to participate considering the PR value, and also despite the US having the troops to fight the battle (the US had around 4m army personnel in Europe by 1945, the UK had 2.5m), the 21st Army Group did contain some of the most experienced soldiers available, alongside those in the US 12th Army Group and for the battle to be a 'success' it would have taken the most experienced allied soldiers.
Although the soviets are comparable with the hardwoking Kid, the brits we're the one that participates and does Something somehow and the US we're the one jumping in the last Minute for real... But thats only true for the German Part of the war, Japan was a whole other story
@@jakobrinsdorf7791 The data from the Eastern front would say otherwise. All casualties from the western theater pale in comparison to the casualties of the east, for both sides. Here are the numbers: ruclips.net/video/DwKPFT-RioU/видео.html
Event Horizon in terms of killed and wounded, the eastern front was a lot worse than western front for both Allied and German forces. But including captured forces, the damage that the western allies’ inflicted upon the Germans isn’t so far away.
@@kurousagi8155 it all depends in your view/ your Focus... In terms of airpower the western allies clearly outdid the soviets while the Army size of things is a whole other Story... In casualties and dighting time and intensity
I heard that The US got all the way to Plzen in western Czechoslovakia and Prague was almost at reach, but then they traded Czechoslovakia for Austria. When the US got to Plzen, the Czech people started an uprising thinking that the US would come to their aid in less then a day, but instead they had to wait a week before the soviets came and the uprising was crushed by German Forces before the soviets even got there.
Im utterly convinced after reading and learning a lot about the WW2, that as early as 1943, the Western Allies knew Germany's defeat was a matter of time; and that by then, their true concern was to invade Europe from a Western front not so much as to defeat Germany that they knew was going down on Soviet's hands anyway, but as to contain the Red Army to invade and keep the whole Europe for the Soviet Union
4:31 Should’ve mentioned the Battle of Hürtgen Forest also. It was very related to what you were mentioning and probably a factor in Eisenhower’s plans.
Normandy, Market Garden, Hurtgen Forest, the Bulge all pale in comparison to Iwo Jima, Guadal Canal, and Okinawa in terms of U.S. casualties. The Germans were tough, but the Japanese were worse. Plans were being drawn up to invade Japan itself and it was dreaded. Then some scientists and technicians came into President Truman's office and put plans for a "special big bomb" on his desk.
I did watch the video and I disagree with it's findings. Maybe I'm not being clear. I thought you were responding to my misspelling of those South Pacific battles. My point was perhaps part of the reason Eisenhower was holding back was that it was obvious to all that Germany was all but officially defeated. And he knew that the U.S. war effort would very soon be concentrated on Japan. The Japanese fought fanatically which surprised the Americans. As soon as Germany capitulated U.S. troops would need to be sent to the Pacific. It would take every available battle experienced man so why cause unneccessary casualties when the Third Reich is dying anyway. Of course, the atomic bomb changed things immediately and an invasion never happened.
I think it's often overlooked as well that this was Russia's war to win. The United States was sitting back and sending them weapons during years of bitter fighting. For us to swoop in and secure the capitol ahead of the USSR would've been unnecessary, costly, and would likely have made post-war negotiation more difficult. Stalin technically came through with the Yalta agreement after all, so from my perspective things only could've gone worse. The US doesn't have a fantastic track record on fulfilling promises to foreign governments, and if we were the ones to turn our backs on the agreement, it would only have led to more hostility and less trust. Not just with the USSR but potentially with our other allies. Perhaps this could've even culminated in the Cold War going hot, something I think we're all glad we didn't see, and a conflict that we (Americans) would almost certainly have lost unless we used nuclear weapons during the brief time we had them and they didn't. Millions of deaths and bad vibes all the way around.
The Ardennes campaign was actually pretty good for the allied, it allowed for the encirclement of 350.000 German Troops. Who most surrendered, due to they would be likely killed and sent to concentration camps in Russia. With the Allieds doing far less punishments. As the video shows, the Allied had full on access to Berlin. But, it was estimated. Driving for Berlin would cost 100.000 Casualties, and more when entering Berlin. General Eisenhower did not want to lose many men, because the American Population would be really mad. That they lost their men for something that was not even worth it. The Americans were right outside the gates Of Berlin, for a while. Before, the Soviets eventually captured Berlin. In a Political stand-point, Berlin was not important for the Allied.
@@AERallert Seeing all the comments and of Historian teachers and researchers agreeing with Armchair, I doubt your statement is true. Without providing any real evidence, of what is not rooted in reality.
I have a Masters of Military History and a Masters of Military Operational Art & Science and this is the best breakdown of the “race” to Berlin that I have ever seen. Well done.
It looks like the occupation zones were preordained, and it's likely capturing Berlin would have cost a lot of casualties regardless which allied army attempted it. How would western Allied leaders justify the losses to their public if they gave the hard fought conquered territory to the Soviet Union afterward?
@@cccpredarmy How do you figure that? I think you mean something about the Danzing? Looking these up, I see they are regarded as fabrications. But even so, the Nazis had a long term plan to liquidate and resettle the east for German lebensraum. And the Soviets likewise wanted to expand westward. And there is Poland, caught in the middle.
@@Emanresuadeen Participation in Munich "Agreement", dividing of Chechoslovakia hand in hand with the Germans, the thrive of building the "Great Polish Commonwealth" - imperialistic views by it's finest, being total dicks and pissing off everyone around (even such powerful states as Germany and SU and actually Chechoslovakia (it was pretty influential at the time)) but on the otherhand licking ballz of UK and France which were thousand+ of km away, and altogether the higher political staff of Poland in 20s and 30s is RIDICULOUSLY stupid tostay blind to obvious developments towards another great war
Several reasons : - Yalta conference gave the Soviet Eastern German area, why the US must fighting for it ? - Soviet have more casulties, so let them have the trophy : Hitler's body (or whatever left) - This is the end of the war, why he must sacrifice more GIs to harshly take Berlin if it will fall anyway - Somebody just didn't want to piss Stalin's generals off, i think Eisenhower knew that there will a race to Berlin between themselves - Preserved US honor ?, I would feel bad if claiming victory by being a griefer
@DevilTrigger Did you even watch the video? One of the main reasons why they didn't try to capture Berlin was that it would be too hard and would cause too many casualties... That's not easy.
By the time of the Yalta Conference , in Feb 1945 , the Soviet army was already in most of Poland , Stalin was holding most of the cards and re neg'ed on his agreement to let Poland have free elections . There wasn't much Churchill or FDR could do about it . ruclips.net/video/o9Ovajkwyxw/видео.html .
What I understand from history is that Stalin was clever to let Patton Montgomery and Eisenhower to believe he did not want Berlin and so do Western allies....but Stalin want position at Central Europe a political stand off between capitalism and communism... Eisenhower how ever was more practical military commander he pushed to capture German technology of rockets and jet engines v2 rockets a military standoff ...he knew after war dubious Soviet allies will turn hostile there fore war can be prospond but not inevitable...so getting German weapons they will have edje over red army as they will be seriously out numbered and out material ..... Soviet after war did not get much of German scientist and weapons as in cold war ara Soviet didnot have jet engine which foolishly given by British turn out to be major mistake in form of Migs in Korean war......
Just a nitpick, but at 2:52 is a slight mix up. The U.K. and French occupation Zones are switched. The French zone was in the northern part and the British zone was in the western part.
Yes, regarding the Berlin sectors. The French sector was created by carving two northern boroughs out of the British sector. That lowered British occupation costs and restored a bit of French prestige.
I did agree with Eisenhower about The Battle of Berlin, "if The Russians wanted a stree-fiight let them have it." That battle shown the world how miserable life would be being ruled by Russia.
Eisenhower was The least experienced of the three generals you mentioned. He prolonged the war by 6 months by his broad front approach.... his foot dragging gave Gen Von Runstead the time he needed to organize a strong defense.
Well, this channel does acknowledge Australian, Kiwi and Canadian troops regularly. However, those 3 countries were still technically part of the British Empire and, therefore, could be represented by the Union Jack on a map. Same for Indian troops who did fight in Europe and North Africa as part of the British army. That being said, of the 4.2 million Allied troops in the western front during the invasion of Germany (discounting Soviets) around 2 million were American. The other 2.2 million were mostly British but also from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Holland, France and many others... and even my country of Brazil had around 10,000 men present. Now, every men that risked his life to rid the world of this regime deserves eternal praise, but complaining that the country that carried most of the burden also gets most of the spoil is a little unfair.
Like any other topic , the reasons get complex - a few main points - In late 1944 , the Allies were struggling with logistics - The Port of Antwerp had not been secured yet - so Montgomery and Patton had to stop advancing - In a Communist State , Stalin viewed Soviet solders as being more expendable - where as massive loss of US and British lives would have less acceptable in Democratic countries . - At the Yalta Conference , FDR needed to secure Stalin's support to declare war on Japan in order to end the Pacific war . - Churchill was becoming more concerned about Stalin and wanted to capture Berlin , but FDR was not concerned that Stalin was a threat . - However , the bottom line is this : The Soviet Army had been fighting the Germans for years , while the Allies were still building up resources to launch the D Day invasion. By the time of then Yalta Conference in February 1945 , the Soviet Army was already at the Oder River 70 Km from Berlin - where as the Allies are still at the Rhine . .
In his book A Soldier's Story, Omar Bradley stated that because of the partition plan, Ike said he didn't want to lose any soldiers fighting for ground they'd just give to the Soviets. Also, he wanted to avoid any possible clashes with Soviet troops. Therefore, he and Bradley decided to stop at the Elbe River.
@@redbaronreborn3372 You did notice the obvious mismatch in reference to dates made for comedic purposes in my comment, yet ... Do you actually think 1945's Berlin was more appealing than today's?
@@Voivode No.Not after months of allied bombing and the utter rubble it was reduced to. What happened to Berlin post war was the equivalent of a war crime in east Berlin as in 1948 food had to be airlifted into it.USSR was an evil enemy to Germans who didn't deserve the mass rapes and starvation. I know losing WW2 had consequences but my own grandmother remarried an American and came to USA to get away from Soviet oppression,who couldn't feed their own volk. Old Germany was the marvel of Europe even 1933 to the early 1940's this despite the treaty of Versailles which was unnecessarily punitive and lead to someone like Hitler and his NSDAP to come to power. Germany rebuilt itself post war with lots of help from USA and others in the west,and since reunion in 1989 has become the economic power of Europe true German greatness imo,but now to ruin itself AGAIN with Muslim immigration and Merkel's government is sickening. Even though I'm American born and raised my 💖 is with the fatherland and it angers me Germany is in the words of Joachim Piper in 1968,"no longer a great nation just a province of Europe" Ffs even Gen.George Patton knew when he was quoted as saying "we have defeated the wrong enemy" and that was in September of 1945.! Deutschland uber allies 🇩🇪
@@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz4839 Bull - the "War Crimes" were Gestapo organised fakes as an excuse for an invasion as agreed with Russia as part of the Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact that handed half of Poland to Russia and all of Finland and the Baltic States, something Russia had wanted since 1921. (The Russians were really pissed when Hitler went back on his word - but then that was just another Hitler promise). You really should stop reading 80 year old propaganda as approved by Joseph Goebbels.
commoDoggo 69 that’s not quite true, American soldiers did beat the Soviets to Berlin but politically it was announced that the soviets took it, though the American soldiers were doing this while defying orders because they refused to let the soviets beat them there
@@EnigmaEnginseer actually no. The USSR WAS the leader of the commentern. Whet Mongolen and some other small nations. But yes The Alliance has a no aggressive pack whet the USSR but they was not really allies only a couple of days.
U. S. Great Britain and French were never "allies" with the Soviets, they were under a "truce" accord. The war was by all "technicalities" over by end of 1943, and the "allies" frankly didn't have the man power or sheer number of equipment to take Berlin by 45, 46, 47 or 48. That's why U. S. dropped two nukes on Japan in 45.
Ea So because the US is the main power and the head of all allied forces in Europe was American. Plus the British couldn’t do it by themselves and America could do it with out Britain
Allies: Ok lets take a slow, strategic approach to defeat Germany while reducing our lo-
Soviets: *U R A A A A A A A A*
More like let the soviet peasants do all of the final grunt work so that we can weaken their position and wont immediately turn agaisnt, as well as give us time to better position our armies
Alejandro Gorricho sounds like communist propaganda but okay
Nah, muricans are just afraid
U.S. : were going to get our asses beat lets wait till Germany is weak then we can say we won the Germans.
We're scared let the real men fight the Germans.
America: "Let's avoid useless casualties"
USSR: *"RUSH B"*
Rush B, cyka blyat!
Flash bang out
They didn't rush it
Rush B is an impossible to play Russian piano song by Sheet Music Boss.
Rush Berlin!!!
Finally a guy whose voice matches his face
I mean there is kneecaps
Lol
ha 1000th like
lmao so true
Damn this comment precise
Germans generals defending against Soviets: "we shall consider our job done if the Americans hit us in our backs"
Eisenhower: "I am about to destroy this man's whole career by simply not showing up."
FEGELEIN FEGELEIN FEGELEIN
@@nachisenpai9127 just wanted to comment this
@@pierresihite8854
Nur bleiben im Raum: Kreitel, Jodl, Krebs, und Burgdorf.
Go meet Hitler, bro. He always wanted to meet you
@@Mortablunt it's Keitel but nice reference.
/DAS WAR EIN BEFEHL!/
The soviets won the race because for them its personal.
Lol
Your comment has a lot of truth to it.
Those fascist pigs butchered our families and friends! Let’s go to Berlin and burn all those goose-stepping bastards to the ground!
NOT ONE STEP BACKWARDS, COMRADES!
Pretty much, they were betrayed by Germany and they brutally decimated the country and the Soviets took heavy losses (many civilians as well) until they were finally able to push them out and took the fight back to Berlin.
@Sakusha Durante so... The nazis invade nearly every country in europe, declarations from hitler calling slavs subhuman and should be destroyed, many scholarly resources and historical documents compiling sex slavery, murder and mass executions of entire groups of people. Maybe you can add to the record by acknowledging not just soviey war crimes, instead of espousing neo nazist thought
*German Soldier in Berlin:* Oh man, I hope the Americans reach a Berlin fir-
**URA in the background**
It's the U.S.S.R. not the URA
zombeak
I’m talking about the scariest thing a German Soldat can ever hear.
An Ura rush is when a fuckton of Russian soldiers roar in fury as they charge vast swaths of land. No matter how much bullets you’ve spent, you will always fall to an Ura rush.
The joke is to show that the onslaught of Russians have arrived in Berlin, and how screwed they are.
zombeak you must be really stupid if you didn’t get that.
@@marrowkaiproductions7053 URAaaaa is the sound soviets use to make when attacking in large groups
zombeak bassicly Ura is the Soviet version of banzai during WW2
Real reason: why let your troops die for berlin when the soviets can
buster117 thts a fact
True, Eisenhower didn't attempt to split the forces in Berlin. So more fought the Soviets.
Let the Russians lose 200,000 street to street fighting for a bombed out city just as the war was ending.
Great plan.
Exactly, also after market garden?
Why do the allies need to over extend the supply anyway?
Obama 69 years later: "Why fight ISIS when the Kurds can?"
The Allies did not face such brutality from the Germans than the Russians did, the main contributors, the UK and US, weren't invaded on home soil so wouldn't be as furious with the Germans as the Russians were and as it was a war of annihilation, the Soviets were furious at the German invasion and wanted to be repaid in blood. Berlin, despite not being a strategic objective, was the symbol of the Nazi ideology that had wiped millions of their people from the face of the earth, they were going to capture it, at all costs.
FrogChip thought the capital where most of the buildings were intelligence and other war related departments were stationed would be a strategic zone/target
The Soviets already invaded Germany before WW2, FYI. They tried taking over Germany and started the German Revolution of 1918-1919 and they failed. Then they invaded Poland and started the Soviet-Polish war...and they failed again.
Wildland Firefighter the Soviets were furious that the Germans had broken the NAP they had both signed and committed to, and also the genocide of the Slavs
Main contributor was USSR
@@wildlandfirefighter5656 what are u talking about wasn't soviets invasion, but uprising of german's communists. The Spartac's uprising, if i'm not mistaken.
U.S: We need to avoid casualties.
*Soviets: PUSH COMRADES!!*
And that's why the Soviets lost 50 million lives but somebody had to do it.
@@jeffdoran8126 the loss around 27 millons and 8 of those were soldiers
We're scared let the real men fight the Germans.
@@barthill9578 USSR: Instead of caring about our people, lets sacrifice millions of our soldiers and civilians and get our asses beat, while the allies destroy Germany and the Japanese.
USA: We keep our losses to a minimum.
USSR: Aaaaa NNNNNNNUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yo Griffin, thanks for the shout out man!
I LOVE YOUR VIDEOOOOS
@@joseph891 Cheers :)
Always nice to see you elsewhere. Looking forward to hannibal and strasbourg.
@@HistoryMarche subbed
@@stian7479 welcome :)
I would think that the misconception that there was a race was probably created most by the soldiers on the front lines, whom were unaware for the most part of strategic-level decision-making while at the same time acting as a sort of massive rumor mill. I would guess many soldiers, if asked, would probably have thought that there indeed 'racing'.
True; Berlin or Bust was the motto plastered everywhere as soon as they got off of the beaches. Eisenhower favored a broad front strategy to begin with, as a targeted thrust could be enveloped and destroyed. Patton literally ran ahead of his supply lines and was cut short in the south while Montgomery's operation Market-Garden fell flat on its face, and was described as trying to push a rope through a needle. Even Hitler in the Battle of the Bulge suffered from the same strategic fallacy. And Eisenhower knew that US troops would suffer heavy losses taking Berlin and that Japan was also going to be a costly affair. So it was basically decided that Stalin would take Berlin, and that the Western Allies would take everything else.
Even that notion was an afterthought. They were mostly focused on getting home alive. Western troops were keen Soviet fans until the job was pretty much done and mass surrenders gave them room to think about other options. The notion of opposing the Soviets was viable once the Nazi scourge was tamed
There was a race but only Soviets were in that race.
If you were a tank driver in 3rd Army driving nonstop across the middle of France you might get that impression.
When I read in the book “Hell to Pay” on the invasion of Japan, it said that the United States started redeploying troops from Europe before Germany surrendered to train for the invasion of Japan. Wasting men taking Berlin that would be needed for Operation Olympic was never an option. Especially because the U. S. only had around 90 army divisions.
Not a single like, But I will like
An American army division was 2 to 3 times larger than a German or Soviet division. The 90 division gamble simply capped the number of divisions raised, not the amount of men assigned to them. The reason why the Western allies didn't take Berlin is because it was to be in the Soviet zone at war's end and wasn't seen as an important strategic priority compared to the Industrialized Western section of Germany... Which was far more important. Take the Ruhr and you take Germany.
Also. The US had a smaller ground army because it had such a massive Air Force and Navy.
You don't need a 6 million man army when you have bombers smashing the enemy's Industrial base and population centers and your tactical air Force is pounding it's ground army. That's why the P51 and P47s were the best tanks of World War 2.
An American army division was 2 to 3 times larger than a German or Soviet division. The 90 division gamble simply capped the number of divisions raised, not the amount of men assigned to them. The reason why the Western allies didn't take Berlin is because it was to be in the Soviet zone at war's end and wasn't seen as an important strategic priority compared to the Industrialized Western section of Germany... Which was far more important. Take the Ruhr and you take Germany.
Also. The US had a smaller ground army because it had such a massive Air Force and Navy.
You don't need a 6 million man army when you have bombers smashing the enemy's Industrial base and population centers and your tactical air Force is pounding it's ground army. That's why the P51 and P47s were the best tanks of World War 2.
There lies the truth...Russians wanted an revange on Germans and Americans wanted one on Japan...
Poor excuse
Why?
Berlin didn’t have oil.
@@glennmandigo6069 Freedom
Democracy!
Actually that explains a lot about the German war effort. Seriously ask pretty much anything about WW2 from the German perspective the answer is often. They have no oil.
We know, otherwise the war would have gone on much longer...
Great Family Guy reference 👍🏼😂
The Soviets won because they used The Armchair Historians link to a 30 day free trial for The Great Courses Plus to learn encirclment tactics
@@neptuneseye7832 They used up their 30 day free trial during barbarossa
Or Nord VPN in order to Protect their information from the Allies.
@@onekill31 Actually they shouldve used Nord VPN in World war 1 when Germany made a telegram to Mexico
@@NinjaTaco__ Lool
Da this is true...
Allies: We shall take a strategic approach to Berlin in order to be as effective as possible while minimizing casualties.
Stalin: Human wave doctrine.
Actually it wasn't really Human wave. the high Soviet losses were due to poor commands. The purge in the Red army greatly reduced the number of experienced commanding officers. So the Red army had to promote young inexperienced men into CO posts. And Stalin never expected the Nazis to attack and he thought that they would keep their word and follow the Molotov Ribbentrop pact. The Soviets weren't prepared.
it was a joke + this was a year ago
I think the words were mass assault. (I am not joking, that is what their doctrine was officially called.
@@Orneyrocks1609 No it wasn't. It was called ,,deep battle" (english translation duh) and it was anything but a human wave doctrine. It was much more similiar to modern bewegungskrieg (blitzkrieg/mobile warfare). That is in its use of tanks and mobile infantry. But blitzkrieg rellied on initiative on a individual level while the soviets more on planning. (you know the whole operational dimension of warfare as we know it today) So please next time don't use HoI4 as your source of information. No hard feelings have a good day.
@@_badger_9902 Yeah, I realised it after a wikipedia bout, but I dont usually delete my comments. But thanks for the explanation, BTW.
Makes me think of Adolf's reaction in Downfall when he heard about the Soviets
DAS WAR EIN BEFEHL!
I am seeing you in every comment section
The Soviets for Hitler's birthday started pumping some 2 million artillery rounds into the city. Now that's a salute, lol.
@@nsms1297 he has no life
@@_Abjuranax_ lmao!
Soviet Generals: We need this much manpower to capture Berlin
Stalin: Does it look like I give a flying flamingo?
*and not a single flying flamingo was given that day*
Well we lowered the conscription age to 16 to increase army numbers so...
Ik I'm being a smart ass here, but starting 1944ish, the Soviets were having serious manpower shortages, something that started even back in 1942, but wasn't as serious of a problem as it was 1944-45.
Stalin gave the generals way more than enough to capture Berlin.
I'm gonna miss him.
"The truth is.... They didn't want to"
*like*
If you read Eisenhower’s autobiography of his time during WWII, “Crusade in Europe”, he claims that he wanted to push further but felt restricted because of the political deal reached between the West and Stalin regarding the division of Germany
Autobiographies have to be read with a reasonable amount of salt, though. Everyone wants to look good in the eyes of history.
Daniel Bower Patton was also upset about this look up what he said about the soviets taking berlin
Perhaps instead of Berlin and Prague like this video mentioned, he didn't want to lose allied lives taking Eastern Germany since it would have all gone to the Soviets anyway as decided at Yalta.
I read somewhere that the strategy of German generals at that time was basically to prevent being captured by the Soviets and be captured by the West instead.
My guess would be that it was obvious to Isenhower and he didn't wanna give them the easy way out.
@@MoffatLee I am also convinced that this is the case as well. There really is no point rushing when the region will be given to the Soviets anyway. And besides, during the run up to the end of the war, many soldiers were less aggressive because they don't want to die or be maimed before the war's end. I am also speculating that there could have been supply issues on the Allies seeing as that their supply had to be shipped then transported by land as opposed to the Soviets who only had to deal with one mode of transport (and they captured many rails in the East as the Germans retreated which explains the speedy Soviet offensives after Bagration). Rails on the West, on the other hand, had been obliterated by Allied bombers to prevent German reinforcements but this backfired on the Allies as they captured more territories and they themselves had to use the very rails the bombed to transport. Slow and methodical approach by the Allies was probably the only way to deal with supply issues and resulted in the Allies slow advances.
Allies: we should go slowly and steadily to reduce casualties
Stalin: OK so here is 2 million men go whatever you need to do if they die just get more from the gulags
That's so awful!!!!!!! Lol
Which is why the Russians took up to 20-25million casualties during the war.
Netro Lancer Yep, and 14 million of this is innocent civilians who were massacred by the Nazis. And not "Russians" - "Soviets"
@@user-lv4ub7mx8x r u trying to say NAZIS didnt care about human life???
Andrew Hoyle well they didn’t
USA: slowly but safety
USSR: *RUSH B,BLYAT*
Old USSR: Not one step back lolol
USSR soldiers “because if you do our own ppl will blow your fucking head off”
Lol
Rush Berlin lmao
Очень смешно мудак
@@greggsiano5920 actually, the order was aimed at officers, so that they wouldn't retreat without autorization. This was actually a smart move, because it meant that officers needed to coordinate retreats between them so that gaps in the line wouldn't open up. Imagine if an entire division retreats and lets your division get encircled because they leave a gap in the formation... This was purely a tactical move, and a smart one at that. Rank and file soldiers caught running were usually only scolded, while officers were usually punished via salary cuts, demotions or, in ~5% of the cases, a free trip to a penal battalion. Only about 1.3% of people caught running were executed. Why waste manpower when your country has been razed to the ground and you need every soldier available to be able to fight the german onslaught? I'm sorry, but please do your research before you comment. If you'd like I'll mention my sources. Also, the USSR did not use human wave tactics. They actually used a blitzkrieg-like strategy from mid 1942 on, which basically dictated: concentrate all your armor in a small point only about a km wide and some soldiers to mop up the threats tanks couldn't deal with (hidden foot soldiers with anti tank weapons). Then, a supply line would be quickly secured and the enemy would be forced to break formation and abandon the field or risk having a huge gap in your formationa and being encircled. When applied correctly, which to be fair it often wasn't due to the inexperience of officers at the start of the war, it'd prevent a huge number of casualties in the long run, since attrition would not come into play. This was not ideal, however, since the fuel needed to sustain the advance was often lacking due to bad roads in the winter or when the supply column was ambushed, so the advance was sometimes stalled. This occurence was rare, though. This tactic worked great in the summer months when the roads were of good quality. What's genius about this tactic is that a soldier doesn't need to be in an exact position in order for the tactic to work, so to a soldier, what this means is just that you have to push forward behind the tanks and await new orders. This made it so that soldiers needed little training to use the strategy effectively, and only the officers and generals needed to be competent, since it required very little coordination on the soldiers' level.
When you are winning the war steadily & may have a far bloodier campaign anticipated against Japan, it would be insane to risk unnecessary casualties
And that’s that
The soviets were preparing to fight the Japanese too, you know.
@@andrewbaumann2661 Yes, but at the moment they were entirely focused on Germany, whereas the US was focused on both
@@scotto2291 they could have easily defeated Japan after taking Germany. Soviets were the most formidable in Ww2.
Makes sense.
Damn this demonetization
Honestly, this demonetisation hits harder than army group centre
Field Marshall Erwin Rommel stands against demonetization.
Erwin Rommel Best Germany general of all time
@@thesnake2620
Or the Grande Armee
@@thesnake2620 harder than my dad
There's something very important you are missing out on. By the time of the early spring 1945, the German resistance on the Western front was greatly diminishing with many soldiers simply surrendering to the Allies. They knew that they would be treated much better if they surrendered to Allies, as opposed to the Soviets. German soldiers were well aware of all the crimes that have been committed on the Eastern Front. So, they were pretty much holding to the last men, whereas on the Western Front, the "last man stand" were much less common.
In addition, there were more German troops deployed on the Eastern Front. For the obvious reasons.
Allied forces were indeed thinking about reaching Berlin, as evident from the Churchill's letter. However, Soviet success and the consequent encirclement during Battle of the Seelow Heights predetermined this question.
Great video, though. Congrats on the monetization, btw.
Not true
From my limited reading, I was under the impression that Eisenhower resisted any drive toward Berlin - even assuring Stalin - in order to preserve the fragile alliance
Also, that was with close correspondence with and support of George Marshall
nah that was bullshit.
Allies: Lets wait till the last 30 seconds to storm them.
Soviets: Rush B Berlin don't stop, if any of you cowards step back i'll make you mine Uranium with your bare hands.
We knew Russia was pissedabout the invasion and Leningrad. They needed to “get some”
They had no choice. It was a war of annihilation. If they lost, nazis would have just butсhered all of them
@Justus Immelmann russia was the biggest part of the union
@Justus Immelmann all of the republics of ussr are separate countries now and technically were back then, just united under one government
Reading about the mass rapes of German women during the Soviet invasion of German heartland, I'll indeed agree that they "got some"
(I don't condone it, I'm just making a note).
@@zippyparakeet1074 can you realy blame them after the s*it Germans did to them. If you were watching your friends and family get killed, your people turned into slaves you would exact vengance in any way you could against your mortal enemies. That beign said i dont support that behaviour but i can understand why...
To sum it all up, the Allies couldn’t care less about Berlin and let the Soviets have it.
Liar
So West-Berlin was just a way of the West to troll the Soviet Union?
No we did, and if the Soviets had there way they would have went all the way to France
@@rsears78 No they wouldn't. They had what they wanted, namely half of Europe under soviet sway
David Colley if they could they definitely would of tried to take France.
"i gOt ThE HOrSeS IN ThE BaCk" - Griff 2019
I was told by a veteran: in the US side 30th infantry that they really hardly met any opposition on their way to Berlin. He explained it as a really annoying walk, openly knowing that the Soviets were getting all german bits.
Very interesting question. Cool you guys cover the niche areas of the big events.
Just leaving a comment for the algorithm. Also: loved the choice of music and a big shout out to your editing, which impresses once again.
One thing to consider: Eisenhower did not have troops to lose. In March 1945 he was no longer getting replacements from the US, they were all earmarked for the Pacific and the upcoming invasion of Japan (Kyushu) in November 1945. In addition, his army was going to be losing 1/3 of his divisions in order to ship them to the Pacific to take part in the second invasion of Japan (Honshu) in early 1946. Source: Hell to Pay, Operation Downfall and the Invasion of Japan 1945-1947.
LOL. "They didn't want to. They didn't even try. Thanks for watching."
britian wanted to secure Denmark and usa wanted to secure southern Germany and Austria ..pretty much
Once you drag Hitler out of his bunker in Berlin I would think that would stabilize every place occupied by the Germans.
It would be curious - Danish People;s Republic - socialism, that danish people love so much.
@@Crashed131963 Yes, but they weren't just thinking about ending the war, they were also thinking about the future situation with the Soviets.
It was the Soviets who captured Vienna. It was exchanged for Prague.
Its little known that the Canadian Army blocked the Soviets from entering Denmark .
.
Omar Bradley wrote in 'A Soldier's Story'' that Ike didn't want to incur casualties to gain territory they'd have to give to Soviets. He was also worried about Allied and Russian armies intermingling risking strife, so he and Bradley decided to stop at the river Elbe, and keep the river between allied and Russian troops
1:53 lol you got me there. I honestly though demonitization had gotten so bad that now learning about history in this channel will be just as long and conplexed as the amount of time we took to learn about history in High School.
"It's simple, they didn't want to."
The answer I've always been looking for.
If you defeat a soviet army
Yoda always said
*There is another*
Next: how the republic of cuba lost the cuban revolution
Essentially, Batista was pretty unpopular, and the anti-Batists forces were very charismatic and decisive. Additionally, Batista made various blunders which he could've used to crush the rebels before they could do anything.
Nice analysis
"Wether that choice is correct is up to the arm chair generals out there." I'm dead.
Operation market gardening.
Sees a bunch of soldiers flying in the air with rocket launchers and shovels.
the good ol' days
I mean the soviets had how many more troops available to them being the fact they are literally a couple country’s over... While the US is thousands of miles away and needs countless ships and logistics to bring small amounts troops over... Might have something to do with it..
Stephen Ambrose wrote a small book on this topic, titled Eisenhower and the Decision to Stop at the Elbe. He stated several of the points made here, and added several other military reasons for Ike's decision. One was that the war with Japan was expected to go on for about two years, and that the US might need to transfer soldiers from Europe to the Pacific, and he needed to conserve soldiers for that fight. Another reason had to do with the possible problem of "friendly fire" casualties when American and Soviet forces finally met in Germany. He needed an easily recognizable border between the two, so that each would be more likely to know that the forces in front of them were no longer German, and should not be fired upon. The Elbe River provided an ideal border, and we stopped there and waited for the Soviet troops to appear.
Ambrose has pretty much been outed as a hack historian, I'd be careful referencing anything from him
Oh, finally, there's someone english speaking who pronounces Zhukov's surname right! Get that, Simon Whistler of Biographics!
Good channels doesn't exi-
wat kgb stop u or cia
or faded by thanos?
Damn I finally got recommended this channel the same day it gets uploaded
It is worth adding that by this stage in the war Britain had pretty much exhausted its manpower reserves and there was a reluctance to participate in operations which were likely to incur high casualties as they were becoming increasingly difficult to replace.
In the UK all men between the ages of 18 and 40 were called up provided they were fit and not in protected industries, that made up about 33% of the male population at the time, but that was only around 7.5 million available men and by 1945 5.5 million were already serving in the armed forces and nearly 500,000 had either been killed, injured or captured earlier in the war.
By this point in the war the UK was disbanding and repurposing troops from all sorts of other units to replace troops in Europe and Burma (for example 35,000 men from the RAF were retrained as infantry, Artillery and AA units from the UK were being retrained since the threat of air attack had gone) but costly campaigns likely to result in tens of thousands of losses were no longer feasible for the UK.
In theory the US could have fought to capture Berlin alone but it is likely the UK would have felt compelled to participate considering the PR value, and also despite the US having the troops to fight the battle (the US had around 4m army personnel in Europe by 1945, the UK had 2.5m), the 21st Army Group did contain some of the most experienced soldiers available, alongside those in the US 12th Army Group and for the battle to be a 'success' it would have taken the most experienced allied soldiers.
Roses are red, violets are blue. The deadliest war in human history has entered its sixth and final year.
Why, because the Soviets did not want to admit it was a team project.
Although the soviets are comparable with the hardwoking Kid, the brits we're the one that participates and does Something somehow and the US we're the one jumping in the last Minute for real...
But thats only true for the German Part of the war, Japan was a whole other story
@@jakobrinsdorf7791 The data from the Eastern front would say otherwise. All casualties from the western theater pale in comparison to the casualties of the east, for both sides. Here are the numbers: ruclips.net/video/DwKPFT-RioU/видео.html
Event Horizon in terms of killed and wounded, the eastern front was a lot worse than western front for both Allied and German forces. But including captured forces, the damage that the western allies’ inflicted upon the Germans isn’t so far away.
@@kurousagi8155 it all depends in your view/ your Focus... In terms of airpower the western allies clearly outdid the soviets while the Army size of things is a whole other Story... In casualties and dighting time and intensity
@@543soldier as i Said, soviets as the main Carrier of the Team...
I heard that The US got all the way to Plzen in western Czechoslovakia and Prague was almost at reach, but then they traded Czechoslovakia for Austria. When the US got to Plzen, the Czech people started an uprising thinking that the US would come to their aid in less then a day, but instead they had to wait a week before the soviets came and the uprising was crushed by German Forces before the soviets even got there.
Rofl! That intro was hilarious! I'm still giggling even though I knew it wasnt for real. Hahaha
Im utterly convinced after reading and learning a lot about the WW2, that as early as 1943, the Western Allies knew Germany's defeat was a matter of time; and that by then, their true concern was to invade Europe from a Western front not so much as to defeat Germany that they knew was going down on Soviet's hands anyway, but as to contain the Red Army to invade and keep the whole Europe for the Soviet Union
"they didn't want to"
"mom, i didn't want to become olimpia champion."
0:52 Brazilian german army? Did i hear it wrong?
Surprisingly resilient german army
I always knew the brazilians were behind it all
Germans who escaped to South America after WW2 founded the Brazil.
Ryan
Never trust Brazil
@@chrisj197438 ok comrade
I saw the animation livestream for 2:58 and it is honestly satisfying to watch. Great video overall.
The wide front superior firepower approach was a major doctrine, especially after the failure of market-garden.
4:31 Should’ve mentioned the Battle of Hürtgen Forest also. It was very related to what you were mentioning and probably a factor in Eisenhower’s plans.
Normandy, Market Garden, Hurtgen Forest, the Bulge all pale in comparison to Iwo Jima, Guadal Canal, and Okinawa in terms of U.S. casualties. The Germans were tough, but the Japanese were worse. Plans were being drawn up to invade Japan itself and it was dreaded. Then some scientists and technicians came into President Truman's office and put plans for a "special big bomb" on his desk.
James Pettigrew I get what you’re saying man but that has nothing to do with the video lol, stick to the topic if you watched the video.
I did watch the video and I disagree with it's findings. Maybe I'm not being clear. I thought you were responding to my misspelling of those South Pacific battles. My point was perhaps part of the reason Eisenhower was holding back was that it was obvious to all that Germany was all but officially defeated. And he knew that the U.S. war effort would very soon be concentrated on Japan. The Japanese fought fanatically which surprised the Americans. As soon as Germany capitulated U.S. troops would need to be sent to the Pacific. It would take every available battle experienced man so why cause unneccessary casualties when the Third Reich is dying anyway. Of course, the atomic bomb changed things immediately and an invasion never happened.
James Pettigrew I see now, you have a point I don’t disagree with.
@SSJ The "core" of every war is political.
never been this early.
same
Never been here this early since the race to Berlin.
Earlier than the allies
Husky King's Royal Games
That’s not what she said 😂😂😂
oh c'mon be original
I think it's often overlooked as well that this was Russia's war to win. The United States was sitting back and sending them weapons during years of bitter fighting. For us to swoop in and secure the capitol ahead of the USSR would've been unnecessary, costly, and would likely have made post-war negotiation more difficult. Stalin technically came through with the Yalta agreement after all, so from my perspective things only could've gone worse. The US doesn't have a fantastic track record on fulfilling promises to foreign governments, and if we were the ones to turn our backs on the agreement, it would only have led to more hostility and less trust. Not just with the USSR but potentially with our other allies.
Perhaps this could've even culminated in the Cold War going hot, something I think we're all glad we didn't see, and a conflict that we (Americans) would almost certainly have lost unless we used nuclear weapons during the brief time we had them and they didn't. Millions of deaths and bad vibes all the way around.
The german offensive in the ardennes in 44/45 was a big reason the western allies couldn't get to berlin before 🇷🇺 and YALTA..
The Ardennes campaign was actually pretty good for the allied, it allowed for the encirclement of 350.000 German Troops. Who most surrendered, due to they would be likely killed and sent to concentration camps in Russia. With the Allieds doing far less punishments. As the video shows, the Allied had full on access to Berlin. But, it was estimated. Driving for Berlin would cost 100.000 Casualties, and more when entering Berlin. General Eisenhower did not want to lose many men, because the American Population would be really mad. That they lost their men for something that was not even worth it. The Americans were right outside the gates Of Berlin, for a while. Before, the Soviets eventually captured Berlin. In a Political stand-point, Berlin was not important for the Allied.
It drives me crazy that people dislike any of these informative videos....
It's very armchair indeed and contains many weird statements that aren't rooted in reality.
No more now!
@@AERallert Seeing all the comments and of Historian teachers and researchers agreeing with Armchair, I doubt your statement is true. Without providing any real evidence, of what is not rooted in reality.
Eisenhower just wouldnt turn Patton loose. Patton said he could take Berlin well before the Soviets.
Why wast men on a division of territory that has already been decided
Jeez I love history, Regardless of how brutal and inhuman it is I find it so interesting.
James Stallard i disagree, violence is the most humane thing.
I have a Masters of Military History and a Masters of Military Operational Art & Science and this is the best breakdown of the “race” to Berlin that I have ever seen. Well done.
It looks like the occupation zones were preordained, and it's likely capturing Berlin would have cost a lot of casualties regardless which allied army attempted it. How would western Allied leaders justify the losses to their public if they gave the hard fought conquered territory to the Soviet Union afterward?
The Polish People's Army reached Berlin before the U.S.
Maybe talk about that since no one else does.....
Anyway, keep up the good work.
Poland: the unsung heroes of World War 2, and European history.
@@Emanresuadeen Poland: the one who carries most of weight for starting ww2
@@cccpredarmy How do you figure that? I think you mean something about the Danzing? Looking these up, I see they are regarded as fabrications. But even so, the Nazis had a long term plan to liquidate and resettle the east for German lebensraum. And the Soviets likewise wanted to expand westward. And there is Poland, caught in the middle.
@@Emanresuadeen Participation in Munich "Agreement", dividing of Chechoslovakia hand in hand with the Germans, the thrive of building the "Great Polish Commonwealth" - imperialistic views by it's finest, being total dicks and pissing off everyone around (even such powerful states as Germany and SU and actually Chechoslovakia (it was pretty influential at the time)) but on the otherhand licking ballz of UK and France which were thousand+ of km away, and altogether the higher political staff of Poland in 20s and 30s is RIDICULOUSLY stupid tostay blind to obvious developments towards another great war
@@cccpredarmy spreading age old Nazi propaganda....you are a special kind of I****
Several reasons :
- Yalta conference gave the Soviet Eastern German area, why the US must fighting for it ?
- Soviet have more casulties, so let them have the trophy : Hitler's body (or whatever left)
- This is the end of the war, why he must sacrifice more GIs to harshly take Berlin if it will fall anyway
- Somebody just didn't want to piss Stalin's generals off, i think Eisenhower knew that there will a race to Berlin between themselves
- Preserved US honor ?, I would feel bad if claiming victory by being a griefer
Short answer: Berlin was geographically closer to the ever marching Soviet army.
During the time of the Normandy landings, the Western forces were actually closer... So no.
@DevilTrigger Did you even watch the video? One of the main reasons why they didn't try to capture Berlin was that it would be too hard and would cause too many casualties... That's not easy.
@William Wykoff Who is they
@DevilTrigger lol, were you homeschooled in Alabama?
@William Wykoff they weren't: ruclips.net/video/WOVEy1tC7nk/видео.html
3:00 eu4 sound effect
Damn Comet/Monarch death.
Stability drop gang
Copyright by RUclips
You almost killed me. I laughed so hard at those early credits that I choked on my rice.
I know how
The Soviets (Russians) used the rush B(erlin) Tactic
“To save Poland!”
By the time of the Yalta Conference , in Feb 1945 , the Soviet army was already in most of Poland ,
Stalin was holding most of the cards and re neg'ed on his agreement to let Poland have free elections .
There wasn't much Churchill or FDR could do about it .
ruclips.net/video/o9Ovajkwyxw/видео.html
.
America:Russia How Did You Go To The Berlin Fast?
Snow:
*its Complicated*
What I understand from history is that Stalin was clever to let Patton Montgomery and Eisenhower to believe he did not want Berlin and so do Western allies....but Stalin want position at Central Europe a political stand off between capitalism and communism... Eisenhower how ever was more practical military commander he pushed to capture German technology of rockets and jet engines v2 rockets a military standoff ...he knew after war dubious Soviet allies will turn hostile there fore war can be prospond but not inevitable...so getting German weapons they will have edje over red army as they will be seriously out numbered and out material ..... Soviet after war did not get much of German scientist and weapons as in cold war ara Soviet didnot have jet engine which foolishly given by British turn out to be major mistake in form of Migs in Korean war......
Short answer: The Soviet Union was promised Berlin by the western allies
Just a nitpick, but at 2:52 is a slight mix up. The U.K. and French occupation Zones are switched. The French zone was in the northern part and the British zone was in the western part.
Why would the French zone not border France? He got it right
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied-occupied_Germany
Yes, regarding the Berlin sectors. The French sector was created by carving two northern boroughs out of the British sector. That lowered British occupation costs and restored a bit of French prestige.
We the US, fought the wrong country.
I did agree with Eisenhower about The Battle of Berlin, "if The Russians wanted a stree-fiight let them have it." That battle shown the world how miserable life would be being ruled by Russia.
Eisenhower was The least experienced of the three generals you mentioned. He prolonged the war by 6 months by his broad front approach.... his foot dragging gave Gen Von Runstead the time he needed to organize a strong defense.
What do you mean? Is obvious that Steiner was the one that pushed back the USA
Just sounds like “Ike” was playing it safe
Me: * watches video *
After Video: well good you mate, but what about some credit for the British, Aussie, Kiwi and Canadian effort.
I forget the part in history where the US are the allies. Must be a Yankee thing
Yes most Americans forget about us :(
Well, this channel does acknowledge Australian, Kiwi and Canadian troops regularly. However, those 3 countries were still technically part of the British Empire and, therefore, could be represented by the Union Jack on a map. Same for Indian troops who did fight in Europe and North Africa as part of the British army.
That being said, of the 4.2 million Allied troops in the western front during the invasion of Germany (discounting Soviets) around 2 million were American. The other 2.2 million were mostly British but also from Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Denmark, Holland, France and many others... and even my country of Brazil had around 10,000 men present. Now, every men that risked his life to rid the world of this regime deserves eternal praise, but complaining that the country that carried most of the burden also gets most of the spoil is a little unfair.
Like any other topic , the reasons get complex - a few main points
- In late 1944 , the Allies were struggling with logistics - The Port of Antwerp had not been secured yet - so Montgomery and Patton had to stop advancing
- In a Communist State , Stalin viewed Soviet solders as being more expendable - where as massive loss of US and British lives would have less acceptable in Democratic countries .
- At the Yalta Conference , FDR needed to secure Stalin's support to declare war on Japan in order to end the Pacific war .
- Churchill was becoming more concerned about Stalin and wanted to capture Berlin , but FDR was not concerned that Stalin was a threat .
- However , the bottom line is this : The Soviet Army had been fighting the Germans for years , while the Allies were still building up resources to launch the D Day invasion. By the time of then Yalta Conference in February 1945 , the Soviet Army was already at the Oder River 70 Km from Berlin - where as the Allies are still at the Rhine .
.
6:30 The Russo-Polish advance on to Berlin. The only time im actually happy we worked togheter with the Soviets...
you has more fun worked with germans?
RUclips be like:
Demonetized. Reason: used copyrighted COD: WAW PTRS sound effect
Yeah i noticed that 🤣🤣🤣
In his book A Soldier's Story, Omar Bradley stated that because of the partition plan, Ike said he didn't want to lose any soldiers fighting for ground they'd just give to the Soviets. Also, he wanted to avoid any possible clashes with Soviet troops. Therefore, he and Bradley decided to stop at the Elbe River.
"It is spring, 1945.
The flowers are in bloom,
The sun is shining....
*AND THE DEADLIEST WAR IN HUMAN HISTORY HAS ENTERED ITS 6TH AND FINAL YEAR.* "
9:28 Best part of video.
Armchair historian and oversimplefield are the only i need to study for an exam
Eisenhower Regret not capturing Berlin when he became president
The answer is simple: No-one wants to go to Berlin. It's a crap place: it's expensive, the people are surly and it doesn't offer anything special.
That's today not in 1945!
@@redbaronreborn3372 You did notice the obvious mismatch in reference to dates made for comedic purposes in my comment, yet ... Do you actually think 1945's Berlin was more appealing than today's?
@@Voivode
No.Not after months of allied bombing and the utter rubble it was reduced to.
What happened to Berlin post war was the equivalent of a war crime in east Berlin as in 1948 food had to be airlifted into it.USSR was an evil enemy to Germans who didn't deserve the mass rapes and starvation.
I know losing WW2 had consequences but my own grandmother remarried an American and came to USA to get away from Soviet oppression,who couldn't feed their own volk.
Old Germany was the marvel of Europe even 1933 to the early 1940's this despite the treaty of Versailles which was unnecessarily punitive and lead to someone like Hitler and his NSDAP to come to power.
Germany rebuilt itself post war with lots of help from USA and others in the west,and since reunion in 1989 has become the economic power of Europe true German greatness imo,but now to ruin itself AGAIN with Muslim immigration and Merkel's government is sickening.
Even though I'm American born and raised my 💖 is with the fatherland and it angers me Germany is in the words of Joachim Piper in 1968,"no longer a great nation just a province of Europe"
Ffs even Gen.George Patton knew when he was quoted as saying "we have defeated the wrong enemy" and that was in September of 1945.!
Deutschland uber allies 🇩🇪
@@redbaronreborn3372 As opposed to the mass rape and murder the Germans inflicted on Poland and the Soviet Union from 1941 to 1944?
@@abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz4839 Bull - the "War Crimes" were Gestapo organised fakes as an excuse for an invasion as agreed with Russia as part of the Molotov - Ribbentrop Pact that handed half of Poland to Russia and all of Finland and the Baltic States, something Russia had wanted since 1921. (The Russians were really pissed when Hitler went back on his word - but then that was just another Hitler promise).
You really should stop reading 80 year old propaganda as approved by Joseph Goebbels.
Keep up the great stuff
No one ever talks about how we all got their at roughly the same time and that we let Russia take berlin
commoDoggo 69 that’s not quite true, American soldiers did beat the Soviets to Berlin but politically it was announced that the soviets took it, though the American soldiers were doing this while defying orders because they refused to let the soviets beat them there
They handed it over because they knew what was good for them.
@@barthill9578 nah they want Germany to suffer so they gave it to the Russians
And the allies still say to this day that they tog the victory.
I’m so disappointed.
The USSR was a part of the Allied Powers :/
@@EnigmaEnginseer actually no. The USSR WAS the leader of the commentern. Whet Mongolen and some other small nations. But yes The Alliance has a no aggressive pack whet the USSR but they was not really allies only a couple of days.
U. S. Great Britain and French were never "allies" with the Soviets, they were under a "truce" accord. The war was by all "technicalities" over by end of 1943, and the "allies" frankly didn't have the man power or sheer number of equipment to take Berlin by 45, 46, 47 or 48. That's why U. S. dropped two nukes on Japan in 45.
You put U.S in the title even though you know it was a combined force of the allies.
James Avery
Most of his viewers are American so unfortunately it makes sense to ignore the nations that wee fighting from the start :(
When you say the US and not the Allies for some reason. Did we forget the other major nations in the title including one other world power at the time
Ea So because the US is the main power and the head of all allied forces in Europe was American. Plus the British couldn’t do it by themselves and America could do it with out Britain
@@oliverisfatandstinkyandhas9873 only one of those things you said is true well done
Ea So which ones aren’t
@@oliverisfatandstinkyandhas9873 head of the allied armed* forces or overall military command was american. ill pay that half a point
What do you mean ‘could do it without Britain’. How do you think you landed in Europe?!
LMAO, Died on the "Thanks for watching part".
Give it to me history daddy