At the Start of D-Day, Hitlers Generals called him and asked for Reinforcements and More Panzer Divisions. At this Time, Hitler was Quietly Sleeping in Bed, and his Assistant told the General to Call Back Later. If Hitler had his Panzer Divisions Concentrated on the Shores of Normandy, it would have been a Disaster for the U.S. and British...
The Reason Why 'Hitler' did not Attack 'Great Britain' Early on was the Fact that He thought 'Great Britain' would sign his Treaty and Bow down to Hitler. Hitler's Generals were trying to get Hitler to attack Great Britain because the British Forces were in Chaos after the Retreat from France. But like i said 'Hitler' thought the British would Give in and Sign his Treaty, So he Attacked Russia instead and While Hitler's Huge Sixth Army was in Stalingrad, the British were building up their forces
@TyroneMBL989 no no he had to first desroy the RAF n RN but he was Unable to do either basically he just couldn't invade Britain if he could he Would his navy never came out to challenge the RN he knew the RN was too formitable to take on without total air superiority the RAF denied him
However, if Hitler did not initiate operation Barbarossa and concentrate on Britain. The Battle of Britain will be long-term battle and there is no guarantee that RAF can counter the full-scale Luftwaffe air force. Also, Hitler preserve most of air-force to invade Russia.
@TheAdrianStalker no one can say one way or another for sure but i think he would ot have been able to conquer Britain cause even when the RAF was on its knees he didn't managed that after he statred bombing cities n that gave the RAF a breathing space n to recoup once the RAF recouped it could only get harder or the nazis it was also the RN to recon with a very powerful Navy with a Huge n proud Historyi think German navy was No match ti the RN my humble opinion of course
@TyroneMBL989 no no he had to first desroy the RAF n RN but he was Unable to do either basically he just couldn't invade Britain if he could he Would his navy never came out to challenge the RN he knew the RN was too formitable to take on without total air superiority the RAF denied him
I like how in the west, people credit the winter in russia for defeating the germans in 1941, when in fact it was the siberian troops which were brought from the far east and used in a counterattack in Dec 5 that defeated the germans, the winter did affect them, but they were still advancing.. And also don't forget that the battle of Kursk was fought in the summer, let's give credit to the red army, if it wasn't for them, 4 million german soldiers would have been in france and the low countries.
@bombarderoazul there isn't just one reason for the defeat of the Wehrmacht...
there are many factors which come together; of course the superiority in men and material is one of the major reasons for the defeat but there were many more factors; Hitlers dumb decisions, Americas and Britains material supply and Informations for russia, Partisans, bad Weather, Stalins ruthlessness, the war in Africa which drew German resources away and also the sheer largeness.
@ThugCologne information from the British embassy in tokyo japan woukld attack the usa not Russia enabled Russia to pull most of its Siberian troops to face the germans the RN supplying the Russians as much as they could through the N sea convoys so to be blank it was Russia n Britain Most that helped defeat facism in europe with of course huge american involvement specially in the pacific thank you all for our freedom
Even if Stalin killed more people, Hitler would have killed more in the end. His racial theories would have moved on once all the Jews and gypsies had been killed, to extermination of all the Russians and other Slavic races and then to the British and French. Eventually his ideas and madness would lead to him killing every non German (even his italina and Japanese allies)
@GeneralSmanTheBest Hitler wouldnt have killed the British, French, etc. France and England declared war on Germany. He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world.. .and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere.." ...The original cause, which goes much deeper, is that Hitler did not want to conquer England. . . . He was preparing, instead, to invade Russia.
@GeneralSmanTheBest gettincrazywithit is right. Hitler actually hoped Britain would not fight he had a surprising amount of admiration for the British Empire. And we'll never know if Hitler would have tried war in Asia, (he considered Iranians Aryan). 'would have' don't have much place in history because it implies something that never happened.
@GeneralSmanTheBest Well I doubt that. He had great respect for the English, and his main enemies were Jews. The Jews and the Gypsies were to be exterminated, and the Slavs were to be either killed, Germanized (they did this in parts of Poland), or turned into slaves. Of course, with a lunatic like Hitler you never know what might have happened had he won WWII.
@gnarbotz Wow are you serious... I didnt know the 22nd of June was spring and not the summer...... Youve just been owned, know your history and know your seasons fuckin idiot.
@BayouBluesMan except the German WERE allied with Soviets and broke their treaty even if the Germans didn't Stalin was planning on a war with Germany in the mid 1940's anyway Communism and Fascism are bitter rivals and an alliance can never work between the two
@DasFuhrerinagstring yes they were but why he broke the treaty? he should buy time if stalin was to attack , oppening 2 fronts is a dumb move , key to everything was to conquer england
@BayouBluesMan He believed the whole RKKA was rotten to the core and the officers wouldn't be effective to Stalin's purges still being fresh in their minds so all he had to do was "kick down the front door" as for England Hitler knew operation SeeLöwe (the invasion of England) was pure propaganda and would never work he was secretly hoping for a peace treaty with England. Also if Hitler hasn't broken the non aggression pact he had with the USSR Stalin would have sooner or later.
@DasFuhrerinagstring i think in order to conquer england he should rule better the atlantic it all came down to tonnage. Regarding what u say about stalin , still had he not attacked first would have bought him time , also keeping a good diplomatic front with the soviets would have helped or even negotiate some sort of deal.
After France i'd take ireland then focus on the British
The Nazi's did try that, aka Operation Green. Wouldn't have worked anyway, Ireland sits to the west of UK, that would mean the Germans had to either go over or around the British Navy and Airforce which was near impossible. 2ndly, logistically moving 1000s of troops and supplies over hostile territory is just madness. The Brits would've cut them to shreds. This is why Operation Green was thought by some to be a bluff since any Military commander would know its suicide.
@BayouBluesMan Hitler didn't have the power to beat Britain. British had superior radar devices and the Royal Airforce took down twice the number of Hitler's airforce. Britain's navy was also far superior, and they were supplied by America.
To be fair, Stalin killed about 20 million people, mostly Russians. Either way stuff like this is a good way of reminding everybody that both sides at war are human. They all have something to live for and to protect. Except Hitler I guess. He was just nuts
i woulda gave my life for the motherland and fought those bastards to the death. It's ridiculous how many divisions surrendered, there's no honor in surrender and there never will be. You fight to the death or you shoot yourself.
@warLock21X You would've given your life for the USSR? Did you know, that USSR did horrible crimes too which can clearly be compared to Nazi Germanys deeds? The USSR attacked its neighbour countries and committed horrible warcrimes, which even words cant describe.
Would've you given your life for the Nazis too? Same sh*t, different name.
@kaahaajaFIN na im not saying ussr didn't commit crimes but the Nazis were worse if you know your history. The nazis wanted to starve out most of the slavs and enslave the one'es that remained. The atrocities they commited show the evil that humans are capable of and that war was attrition like the world has never seen.
@warLock21X are u stupid i would not want to die for either of them they were both war criminals and if compared stalin killed way more people than hitler did during his regime. stalin is never dimonized just because he was the one that captured berlin so all his crimes were forgiven whic h is bullshit because he did some horrible stuff
@warLock21X yea but at the same time they occupied tons of other contries and put them under the tyrannny that is communism do u know the horrible crimes that were commited by the soviets people know alot about the death camps in nazi germany but how many people know about the equally horrible work camps in syria that the USSR set up. the POW had to eat there own vomit and urine to survive the harsh cold conditions
The Nazis are the most ruthless, extreme, mass murderers ever. They commited unspeakable attrocities with no emapthy and killed people as though they were killing flies. They're an example of the evil that humans are capable of.
The German army where just as bade as the SS they where mudering just as the SS some way the history did give a very wrong picture of the German Army, just the last fuw years the real picture came out in the open about the Army.
also keep in mind that stalin's russia murdered just about twice as many people as hitler's germany if we are using the tally system for evil. not including the war dead it was about 21 million for the nazi's vs 42 million for the commie and mao got them both beat with 70~80 million
Actually, Hitler convinced the German people that he would save Germany and give people jobs, fix the economy, etc. The German people never wanted to go into a war in the first place, Hitler had a talent as a public speaker and was very convincing because of his powerful speeches. Hitler did have the SS and a powerful army but by the end of the war, his army was composed of soldiers who were forcefully inducted into the army. People of even 16 years of age were forcefully inducted into the army.
Germans were fighting on a strategic scale with tactical resources. A Mark IV panzer is a big lump of shit sitting on the steppe without gasoline and spare parts hauled in from the Ruhr 1500 miles away. Note to OKW for future reference.
If Russia lost, the main German army would come from the east front and reinforce the western. Germany would have had acsess to Oil, Steel and more manpower to work the Russian factories. It would have meant invading mainland Europe pointless and the war would have most likely dragged on untill the Americans nuked Berlin or some other major German city like they murdered half a million civilions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, lets be glad that didint happen.
@life0rdeath more like 240,000 dead from the hiroshima and nagasaki bombings but thats insignificant next to the loss of life that would have occured had the U.S. had to actually invade mainland japan
Hitler when young, his highest goal was to be an artist, he failed, he join the army and fought in ww1 and his not even a ranking officer or never got promoted. He only took power because his a great public speaker and damn lucky that it was a depressed times to make citizens fooled enough
@whythewar1 most Russians fought in the front was sent back to labor camp and worked to death. Stalin feared that his soldiers will rise up against him now that they seen how rich the western are. So much for sacrificing yourself for motherland.
We have a very bad case of armchair generals gathering here.If YOU would of led a great invasion army things like these wouldnt have happened because YOU guys are over-the-edge warfare geniuses.I suggest you warfare critics join the army and with ur oversized brains youll be generals put at the head of invading armies in no time
why put dramatic music on when german soldiers are freezing and dying ?
the numbers dont lie , those are 14.000.000 civillians died in russia by the germans while the germans in total had 8mln deaths all together in the whole ww2 .
think bout it , would it be a possibility for any country to murder 40 mln people , and when they get defeated , they get told off , and get theire country back . hmmm , the russians where mild on the murderers of 24 mln of theire fellow countryman .
This is very negative propaganda designed to make people hate Germany. Even the interviews are only of negative soldiers who hid to save themselves instead of the brave ones who actually did the fighting.
its a nice change from the other documentaries that fucking praise the NAZIS like they were the best thing since slice bread. its nice to see nazis in their true light.
YOUR ONE CONFUSED PIECE OF SHIT. FOR ONE THING I'M ANYTHING BUT IGNORANT, IF ME NOT LIKING NAZIS MAKES ME A BIGOT, YOU PRAISING THEM MAKES YOU A FUCKING NAZI RACIST SHIT BAG, BURN IN HELL FUCK FACE.
@Alexandros1294 You are still parroting 1940s propoganda. You are brainwashed into calling all Germans 'nazis' even though only a microscopic percent of Germans were members of the nazi party. You may as well call all americans 'democrats' if you want to be consistent.
@YappyRaccoon Sorry to tell you, but Hitler and the SS were Nazis. Hitler's German Army were fighting for the Nazi's therefore making them Nazi's and supporters of them as well. It was the German army, and the SS that committed the atrocities against the 14 million Jews, Slavs, and Poles. Who else can take responsibility?
@Alexandros1294 I've heard the 1940s propoganda already. I don't need your nagging. If you think about it even on a neanderthal level, you'll realize that your knee-jerk, cliche sermon of bigotry will not force anyone to agree with all your opinions. I just don't care what you think.
@Alexandros1294 Nazi is a political ideology, to be a Nazi, you need to believe in Nationalistic Socialism, otherwise your not.
And bullshit did they commit such atrocities to the degree your saying. And they tried to save Europe from Communism, a worthy cause to which they deserve praise.
Few people could attack Russia in Winter and win...Genghis Khan, Napoleon...Hitler was not one. Infact he had the army attack in the Russian winter, hoping his generals could make his "Blitzkrieg" succeseful. But the Russians as they retreated towards the middle of Russia they burnt their crops and homes. German soldiers were dieing of bullet, cold, and starvation.
@XiahouDun1225 Germany was fighting against France, England, USA on the western front and in North Africa while actively supporting Japan and Indian National Army fight the USA and the British. Yet they almost won against the Russians. Napoleon or Khan did not have to do all that to defeat the Russians.
i can assure you if hitler had put the amount of share manpower that was on the eastern front in north africa,britain would have been finished. did you see how long it took them to even get back on the western mainland after they got fucking steam rolled in the innitial attack.north africa was a minor affair for hitler with only 2 german armies fighting on that front.the goal was the keep the brits and americans busy long enough for the main shock armies to conquer russia before he focused west.
even though russia won the war, they lost far too many civilians and soldiers (pawns), total of around 21 million dead russians, and only about 3 million nazis. In my book, Germany raped them - double penetration style!
Uh, those numbers are incorrect. First of all Russia lost more civilians than soldiers, many of which starved to death during the war and died out of diseases. A lot of russians were also taken as slave labor by the Germans and died in Germany and other countries they were stationed in as workers. Second of all not all Germans were nazis, 4,3 million Germans died in battle or as prisoners, and another 3 million were taken as prisoners and later released.
You must be a troll. I can't imagine you being the real deal, although there are a lot of vermin festering the net.
Here's some fact for you. 80 percent of all German losses were on the Eastern Front and any German historian will tell you the same. That's where the Wehrmacht lost the war.
Hitler shouldn't never had openned a second front, ukrainian first saw the nazi as liberators... after a year of bitter starvation they understood who were really the hitlers nazi evilness and it's a luck that he was so stupid as a commander. when he overruled the whole chain of command he doomed germany as a conqueror nation... thank god
I personally have no idea what Hitler was thinking when he attacked Russia. It was his own undoing when he attacked the only military force that could eventually crush them, which is exactly what happened.
to make matters worse he declared war on the U.S.A after japan got into a war with them, forcing him to fight on 2 large fronts. This in the hope that making the U.S.A. fight on to fronts would break it apart. Talk about irony.
There is no Good or Bad in War . IN War Emotion can only cause you death even if father and son in the opposite side they will kill to survive. i Think the World Develope and Things to survive ...
I can agree that stalingrad was not THE decisive battle of the entire war, other battles on the eastern front, such as the gigantic battle at Kurst or the massive Russian offensive "Operation bagration" the all but destroyed army group center was more decisive. But Stalingrad was indeed also a decisive and very important one, especially recarding moral of the soldiers of both sides.
The Biggest tank battle was in kursk total over 2000 tanks ,the biggest infantry battles were fought in Russia and the eastern front.from 5 germans killed 4 were killed in the eastern front what are we talking about how can you compare the two fronts?
After occuping the weastern europe in a easy way (less then 4 months) all good and expierence german soldiers were transfered to the eastern front .only the new unprepared german youth stayed to in france,holland,belgian,norway,denmark ect......
The allies Even couldnt capture Italy in the end of the war ,allies tried to Capture from septembar 1943 until the end of the war,What happend iIn Montecasino Did you forget?what happend In operation garden?how many americans killed in the battle of bulge?how many POW did the germans cuptured?
The germans lost the war in the west For two reasons
1-German were without fuel thay cuoldnt move there tanks and heavy artilary
2-thay had little plans -1 german figter to 5 allied .
The allies Even couldnt capture Italy in the end of the war ,allies tried to Capture from septembar 1943 until the end of the war,What happend iIn Montecasino Did you forget?what happend In operation garden?how many americans killed in the battle of bulge?how many POW did the germans cuptured?
The germans lost the war in the west For two reasons
1-German were without fuel thay cuoldnt move there tanks and heavy artilary
2-thay had little plans -1 german figter to 5 allied .
APPLEPIE978 why dont you speak about facts Please speek facts or dont speek bullshit .
all Europe was under Hitlers legs when Germany invaded Russsia,Germany occupied all of europe in only 4 months.The turning point of the war are the war and eevery body knows are the battles of kursk and Staljingrad so dont speek bull shit .American, Canadians,entered the war in the end of 1943 until that moment Russia was the only Country wich still stand against the Germans
All of Europe wasnt occupied by Hitler, Switzerland wasnt, Spain wasnt, Britain wasnt.
Canada joined the war in 1939 when along with the other British commonwealth countrys.
Russia certainly wasnt the only country standing against the Germans, Britain, Australia, New Zeland, Canada, South Africa and French, Polish and other troops that had fled to Britain to fight against the Nazis... Even Germans whent to Britain to help in the fight against Nazi Germany.
Sweden wasn't either. But as long as we provided the German army with a lot of high quality steel we were exactly where Hitler wanted us. Besides he already had Norway and thereby control of the coast of the northern sea, atlantic and polar sea.
I say Winston Churchill saved the allies when he decided to keep fighting Germany in 1940 after the fall of France when many British politicians thought making peace with Hitler would be the best option.
@McLarenMercedes actually it was the birtish pride that kept britain fighting.while those coward who wanted to make peace were german spies and supporters.that's even why churchill even became prime minister.he had shown some insane messed up things,thus,they thought that he would fail and gurantee victory for germany.really great luck for churchill that the germans were not even really serious on taking britain,it was all a cover up,a mistake that cause the germans alot of problems...
You could never compare The allies soldiers with the Germans.The Germans occupieded all of Europe For 2 months,They had everything skilled,,Brave ,experienc,s,militancy ect.
In the WW2 Germany had 400 000 Dead
The allies Had 600 000O - counting only British and Americans Dead In only less then one year .FUNNY
In Russia Germany had 5 000 000 milion dead
Numbers here say Everything Without The russsians America and England would easy lose the war they had much luck.
without the allies Russia would be utterly destroyed since Germany would have been able to recall its army in France. Also Russia's strat was wait for the winter, after the winter Russia's army was totally inept, poorly armed, poorly trained, not to mention when the blitz in Russia started the Germans were out numbered 2 to 1 Infantry and Machine wise but still got pawned until winter.
War is NOT necessary for human development, as a previous commentor stated. War only seems necessary because that's what we've been taught (brain-washed)I. But I fear a lot more killings than ever before is coming. So sad.
Go figure, the allies were planning to assasinate him, multiple times actually, but always decided not to, or the time just wasnt right. Perhaps they did not decide to kill him because he was already fucking things up better than anybody could expect from a military perspective, it was figured that it would do a greater good if he kept making stupid mistakes and keps slaughtering his own army.
Actually they feared that someone with more Military competence then Hitler would replace him. The allies were already steamrrolling the Nazis at that point so they didn't want to take a risky gamble.
As opposed to Hitler who had too much faith in luck and not enough in skill
Hitler had no choice but to postpone his assault on Russia by almost 3 months due to the unwanted Italian intervention in Greece. This way the Germans were first forced to assist their dodgy ally. If Italy hadn't attacked Greece on their own and lost, the Balkan episode of WW2 would have been avoided, Moscow conquered on time, and the Russians in far deeper trouble for sure.
yh but if hitler had sent all his troop at the oli or at stglingra he wouldo off won but he mess up and hitler shouldo save most of his army whent they was gt beat and come back he did nt and loose gd im happey he lost
supply issues weren't as much as a problem for hitler as they were for napoleon, due to better technology. The problem is that the supply lines got cut and armies got encircled.
@hatemf23 that's right, they meant the campaign wouldnt last for more then a couple of weeks, maybe even days, but they didnt anticipate the amount of resistance the russians would put up, so the battle raged on for month's, and then the worst winter for many decades hit russia, the russians were prepared for this in one way or another, the germans on the other hand, were not.
@kornek21 well I dont think its that simple, they were very successful at first, capturing millions of prisoners, its only when they reached the borders of Moscow and fanatical resistance in Stalingrad that things began to change, the cold only helped.
@gstv87 Napoleon attacked Russia in the summer, and so did Hitler. It was an early winter and unexpected results that messed them up. Also, don't compare Hitler to Napoleon when it comes to military history. Napoleon went to a military school to become a general, Hitler was just a douche.
@gstv87 so what? do you think the russians have any advantage in cold and snowy areas? they do not. noone has. the winter makes the whole warfare more difficult for both sides. i mean the germans started the war in the year 1941. they had already faught under the conditions of russian winter before the battle of stalingrad and they had been successful! not the winter wins the war. the people do!
@IchFresseMeinenKopf1 that winter was particularly harsh if i remember correctly it was the coldest winter in like 100 years so that could make a difference i think. also b4 you underestimate the effects weather can have have you ever tried just living outside in the winter much less fight in it
@Chaser880 i know that fighing in winter is very difficult bur not just for the germans but for the russians also. many suggest that the russians won because of the winter. thats not true. in fact they lost even more people in winter than the germans.
@gstv87 tooo bad he never ordered them to attack in the winter this battle lasted almost half a year into the winter. what he did was assume they would rofl stomp Stalingrad in a few days.
Hitler underestimated the Russian people! RUssian women, men and children and everyone in Russia will stand for each other and their Motherland! That who comes with a sword to us - with the sword will be killed!
At this battle, I agree, but many volunteered for the front. There are countless diary entries that read something to the effect of "I have no food, no weapons, barely any clothing. I could just surrender, but I will keep fighting for the Motherland. Farewell, my beloved family. Farewell, Motherland." Also, I have read German entries that even if surrounded and unarmed, Russians would keep fighting, which actually took a huge toll on German morale, because the Russians just wouldn't stop.
Russian morale should of been low also with their treatment, there is some diaries from Berlin were an whole batallion was without weapons at Berlin in the end of the war... they kept using this tactic all the way throw the war and the Russian lost alot of soldiers in these tactic, no wonder the Germans couldn't hold them when there's so many soldiers storming everywhere.
I belong to no church, my friend. I am following the path of Buddha. All I am saying is that may we remember all of those who died in every war, and that I wish there will be true peace on earth one day. Most of my family died by being killed by the nazis in Russia in WWII. Because of this, I see the deeper meaning: hate cannot stop hate, and that we should remember EVERYONE that died. Remember that. And remember most of my family were killed by the nazis.
*sigh* I am afraid you are right. "As long as there are men, there will be wars." -Albert Einstein. I agree with you, but I still wish for it and encourage nonviolence. Ah, humanity...
The problem with non-violence is that it tears apart (very slowly) all that man has created. War is the only way we can advance. The only way we have learned how to improve ourselves. Stop war, and you stop humanity.
Until we are no longer human, we will always need to have conflict.
So then my question is: what is improvement? Comming up with better guns, better products, more efficient tools... of what? What about morality? And you say that it tears apart what man has made. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Is stopping humanity (by that I mean human morals. Or, at least, what they have become) really that bad? Is undoing our advancement / perversion of society going backwards... or advancing us closer to morality and brotherhood? Just saying the other side of the coin :-)
War gives us something to do. Humans get extremely bored when there is only peace. They don't even try to develop morals at times like that. This is where conflict comes in. It gives us reasons to develop morals.
If you have brotherhood between all people, then they will eventually break, but with much more destructive results than if they have the chance to vent via war.
It sounds nice and all to have peace, but it does not help humanity develop.
If that is the case, then I do not support human development. And what about Ancient China? While Europe was occupied in holy wars, China had only peace and experienced a gigantic boom economically, culturally, artistically, and, yes, morally, BECAUSE they were not burdened by the horrors of war. All the money and effort in war could be spent for true progress, not "venting." P.S. Aren't you enjoying this debate??? :-)
Stalingrad couldve been avoided, if Hitler had followed his Original Plan and that was to capture the Vast Oil Fields of the Caucasus, because the Oil there was the Life Blood of the Russian Economy.
actually the german army was poorly equiped, except for the SS troops. the other allied armies, such as romanains had equipment as old as the battle of waterloo. the germans were lucky the lasted so long.
The German army was modern and good equipped, not equipped for winter yes, but they had the right weapons, the right tanks, but for urban combat they were not ready for it.
Or first the oil fields with the entire Army, while cutting off the Volga south of Stalingrad, allowing eventual Blitzkrieg tactics while avoiding high casualties through close city combat as well as Russian Artillery and Snipers in a devastated and unfamiliar battle environment...
Not to pick at what you said, but the Battle of Moscow in '41 actually had more soldiers involved and more casualties on both sides than the Battle of Stalingrad. In comparison, Moscow '41 destroyed more transport capability and so on plus the myth of German invincibility.
but the wehrmacht wasnt destroyed at Moscow. It was defeated but it was still able to reestablish its lines. But after Stalingrad, an entire army was lost.
This was the most important single battle of the Twentieth Century. I admire the stark and unrelenting courage of the soldiers of both sides. An epic battle for the ages.
@Boelcke1916 I'd say that the Battle of Britain was more decisive than this one. Even if Stalingrad fell, the Germans would still be defeated because the USA, with their huge industry and manpower, were dragged into the war. However, if Britain had fallen, the Allied invasion would have been much more complicated.
@CrystalHunter1989 i also wonder how the german veterans feels during that time, the massacre and destruction they made, seeing people suffering nothing to eat and homeless no respect for human lives..
i can hear someone whacking off in this vid
n8tivguitar 10 hours ago
Human body is pretty though against the cold but when u don't have any food it's useless and weapons freezing or not working.
TheSupersoldier1234 1 week ago
At the Start of D-Day, Hitlers Generals called him and asked for Reinforcements and More Panzer Divisions. At this Time, Hitler was Quietly Sleeping in Bed, and his Assistant told the General to Call Back Later. If Hitler had his Panzer Divisions Concentrated on the Shores of Normandy, it would have been a Disaster for the U.S. and British...
TyroneMBL989 3 weeks ago
The Reason Why 'Hitler' did not Attack 'Great Britain' Early on was the Fact that He thought 'Great Britain' would sign his Treaty and Bow down to Hitler. Hitler's Generals were trying to get Hitler to attack Great Britain because the British Forces were in Chaos after the Retreat from France. But like i said 'Hitler' thought the British would Give in and Sign his Treaty, So he Attacked Russia instead and While Hitler's Huge Sixth Army was in Stalingrad, the British were building up their forces
TyroneMBL989 3 weeks ago
@TyroneMBL989 no no he had to first desroy the RAF n RN but he was Unable to do either basically he just couldn't invade Britain if he could he Would his navy never came out to challenge the RN he knew the RN was too formitable to take on without total air superiority the RAF denied him
polygamous1 1 week ago
@polygamous1
However, if Hitler did not initiate operation Barbarossa and concentrate on Britain. The Battle of Britain will be long-term battle and there is no guarantee that RAF can counter the full-scale Luftwaffe air force. Also, Hitler preserve most of air-force to invade Russia.
TheAdrianStalker 1 week ago
@TheAdrianStalker no one can say one way or another for sure but i think he would ot have been able to conquer Britain cause even when the RAF was on its knees he didn't managed that after he statred bombing cities n that gave the RAF a breathing space n to recoup once the RAF recouped it could only get harder or the nazis it was also the RN to recon with a very powerful Navy with a Huge n proud Historyi think German navy was No match ti the RN my humble opinion of course
polygamous1 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TyroneMBL989 no no he had to first desroy the RAF n RN but he was Unable to do either basically he just couldn't invade Britain if he could he Would his navy never came out to challenge the RN he knew the RN was too formitable to take on without total air superiority the RAF denied him
polygamous1 1 week ago
I like how in the west, people credit the winter in russia for defeating the germans in 1941, when in fact it was the siberian troops which were brought from the far east and used in a counterattack in Dec 5 that defeated the germans, the winter did affect them, but they were still advancing.. And also don't forget that the battle of Kursk was fought in the summer, let's give credit to the red army, if it wasn't for them, 4 million german soldiers would have been in france and the low countries.
bombarderoazul 3 weeks ago
@bombarderoazul there isn't just one reason for the defeat of the Wehrmacht...
there are many factors which come together; of course the superiority in men and material is one of the major reasons for the defeat but there were many more factors; Hitlers dumb decisions, Americas and Britains material supply and Informations for russia, Partisans, bad Weather, Stalins ruthlessness, the war in Africa which drew German resources away and also the sheer largeness.
you see
ThugCologne 3 weeks ago 2
@ThugCologne information from the British embassy in tokyo japan woukld attack the usa not Russia enabled Russia to pull most of its Siberian troops to face the germans the RN supplying the Russians as much as they could through the N sea convoys so to be blank it was Russia n Britain Most that helped defeat facism in europe with of course huge american involvement specially in the pacific thank you all for our freedom
polygamous1 1 week ago
Even if Stalin killed more people, Hitler would have killed more in the end. His racial theories would have moved on once all the Jews and gypsies had been killed, to extermination of all the Russians and other Slavic races and then to the British and French. Eventually his ideas and madness would lead to him killing every non German (even his italina and Japanese allies)
GeneralSmanTheBest 3 months ago
@GeneralSmanTheBest Hitler wouldnt have killed the British, French, etc. France and England declared war on Germany. He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world.. .and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in difficulties anywhere.." ...The original cause, which goes much deeper, is that Hitler did not want to conquer England. . . . He was preparing, instead, to invade Russia.
gettincrazywithit 3 months ago
@GeneralSmanTheBest gettincrazywithit is right. Hitler actually hoped Britain would not fight he had a surprising amount of admiration for the British Empire. And we'll never know if Hitler would have tried war in Asia, (he considered Iranians Aryan). 'would have' don't have much place in history because it implies something that never happened.
mozilla1986 3 months ago
@GeneralSmanTheBest Well I doubt that. He had great respect for the English, and his main enemies were Jews. The Jews and the Gypsies were to be exterminated, and the Slavs were to be either killed, Germanized (they did this in parts of Poland), or turned into slaves. Of course, with a lunatic like Hitler you never know what might have happened had he won WWII.
topperheartramada 2 months ago
hey.... these guys are fuckin' geeks. Its HISTORY y'all!!! and you're fightin' over it!!!! Its HISTORY!!!!
Ilovegames16 3 months ago
@Ilovegames16 You're fucking right........
nikemac84 3 days ago
@gnarbotz Wow are you serious... I didnt know the 22nd of June was spring and not the summer...... Youve just been owned, know your history and know your seasons fuckin idiot.
MarineInfantry00 4 months ago
hitler what an idiot , first u take over england then allie with the soviets and the japs u take the US, then world and hell is the same
BayouBluesMan 5 months ago
@BayouBluesMan except the German WERE allied with Soviets and broke their treaty even if the Germans didn't Stalin was planning on a war with Germany in the mid 1940's anyway Communism and Fascism are bitter rivals and an alliance can never work between the two
DasFuhrerinagstring 4 months ago
@DasFuhrerinagstring yes they were but why he broke the treaty? he should buy time if stalin was to attack , oppening 2 fronts is a dumb move , key to everything was to conquer england
BayouBluesMan 4 months ago
@BayouBluesMan He believed the whole RKKA was rotten to the core and the officers wouldn't be effective to Stalin's purges still being fresh in their minds so all he had to do was "kick down the front door" as for England Hitler knew operation SeeLöwe (the invasion of England) was pure propaganda and would never work he was secretly hoping for a peace treaty with England. Also if Hitler hasn't broken the non aggression pact he had with the USSR Stalin would have sooner or later.
DasFuhrerinagstring 4 months ago
@DasFuhrerinagstring i think in order to conquer england he should rule better the atlantic it all came down to tonnage. Regarding what u say about stalin , still had he not attacked first would have bought him time , also keeping a good diplomatic front with the soviets would have helped or even negotiate some sort of deal.
After France i'd take ireland then focus on the British
BayouBluesMan 4 months ago
@BayouBluesMan
The Nazi's did try that, aka Operation Green. Wouldn't have worked anyway, Ireland sits to the west of UK, that would mean the Germans had to either go over or around the British Navy and Airforce which was near impossible. 2ndly, logistically moving 1000s of troops and supplies over hostile territory is just madness. The Brits would've cut them to shreds. This is why Operation Green was thought by some to be a bluff since any Military commander would know its suicide.
fitzrapid 4 months ago
@BayouBluesMan Hitler didn't have the power to beat Britain. British had superior radar devices and the Royal Airforce took down twice the number of Hitler's airforce. Britain's navy was also far superior, and they were supplied by America.
Cruxispal 4 months ago
isnt watching history so much more interesting than some stupid BET channel or shows like jersey shore? y cant my friends see this
VanB13 5 months ago 2
Is that a Jewish name at 2:29?
nutsbutdum 5 months ago
@nutsbutdum Probably Prussian (Polish) in origin.
GaijinGDB 5 months ago
@nutsbutdum Probably, but im almost sure he was a Polish Slesian (they had been inducted to the german army as Germans but they were Poles).
search google, theres a few informations about him
colano11 4 months ago
To be fair, Stalin killed about 20 million people, mostly Russians. Either way stuff like this is a good way of reminding everybody that both sides at war are human. They all have something to live for and to protect. Except Hitler I guess. He was just nuts
shamitri 5 months ago
this is not decisive battles, wtF!
purefatdude2 6 months ago
i woulda gave my life for the motherland and fought those bastards to the death. It's ridiculous how many divisions surrendered, there's no honor in surrender and there never will be. You fight to the death or you shoot yourself.
warLock21X 7 months ago
@warLock21X
child
ApocDevTeam 7 months ago
@ApocDevTeam a child that would beat your ass
warLock21X 7 months ago
@warLock21X You would've given your life for the USSR? Did you know, that USSR did horrible crimes too which can clearly be compared to Nazi Germanys deeds? The USSR attacked its neighbour countries and committed horrible warcrimes, which even words cant describe.
Would've you given your life for the Nazis too? Same sh*t, different name.
kaahaajaFIN 7 months ago
@kaahaajaFIN na im not saying ussr didn't commit crimes but the Nazis were worse if you know your history. The nazis wanted to starve out most of the slavs and enslave the one'es that remained. The atrocities they commited show the evil that humans are capable of and that war was attrition like the world has never seen.
warLock21X 7 months ago
@warLock21X actually stalin was the second greatest mass murderer in history next to "god" if the bible isnt full of bullshit
MagnumPI4 6 months ago
@MagnumPI4 lol.. yes i agree fuck god i'm not saying stalin wasn't evil it was just that the ussr needed him to win the war.
warLock21X 6 months ago
@warLock21X are u stupid i would not want to die for either of them they were both war criminals and if compared stalin killed way more people than hitler did during his regime. stalin is never dimonized just because he was the one that captured berlin so all his crimes were forgiven whic h is bullshit because he did some horrible stuff
22smosh 5 months ago
@22smosh if i had to i would you're mad retarded... stalin and the red army saved the world from nazism
warLock21X 5 months ago
@warLock21X yea but at the same time they occupied tons of other contries and put them under the tyrannny that is communism do u know the horrible crimes that were commited by the soviets people know alot about the death camps in nazi germany but how many people know about the equally horrible work camps in syria that the USSR set up. the POW had to eat there own vomit and urine to survive the harsh cold conditions
22smosh 5 months ago
The Nazis are the most ruthless, extreme, mass murderers ever. They commited unspeakable attrocities with no emapthy and killed people as though they were killing flies. They're an example of the evil that humans are capable of.
warLock21X 7 months ago
dam them germans
slyrader1 8 months ago
The German army where just as bade as the SS they where mudering just as the SS some way the history did give a very wrong picture of the German Army, just the last fuw years the real picture came out in the open about the Army.
51Zeev 8 months ago
@51Zeev You are absolutely right!
ormaya1 8 months ago
@51Zeev
No army is innocent in war.
TheDarkFrontier 7 months ago
@TheDarkFrontier I do know what war is lived in a country that was at war.
51Zeev 6 months ago
also keep in mind that stalin's russia murdered just about twice as many people as hitler's germany if we are using the tally system for evil. not including the war dead it was about 21 million for the nazi's vs 42 million for the commie and mao got them both beat with 70~80 million
wiseorwiseazz 8 months ago
Khruschev renamed the city Volgograd during his de-Stalinazation. It's a shame, really. The city is a symbol of the human spirit.
Clonetrooper1139 9 months ago
for the glorius motherland!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
daviesguns69 9 months ago
Actually, Hitler convinced the German people that he would save Germany and give people jobs, fix the economy, etc. The German people never wanted to go into a war in the first place, Hitler had a talent as a public speaker and was very convincing because of his powerful speeches. Hitler did have the SS and a powerful army but by the end of the war, his army was composed of soldiers who were forcefully inducted into the army. People of even 16 years of age were forcefully inducted into the army.
apocolypticful 11 months ago
@apocolypticful He did give them jobs and fix the economy, but he did it by establishing weapon factories and other war-stuff.
finalfantasy50 10 months ago
@finalfantasy50 Your are correct in both points, he would have become one of the greatest leaders in Germany's history. He had other intentions.
apocolypticful 9 months ago
An excellent documentary - particularly valuable is the testimony of what was happening to the Russian civilian population.
alanheath3 1 year ago
Надоели уже эти немцы - из фильма в фильм рассказывают о своих страданиях. Кто их сюда звал?!! Они так ничего и не поняли...
rustystalingrad 1 year ago
hittler´s biggest mistake was to attack russia in winter time, the was the beginning of the end.
marcedeniro 1 year ago
Germans were fighting on a strategic scale with tactical resources. A Mark IV panzer is a big lump of shit sitting on the steppe without gasoline and spare parts hauled in from the Ruhr 1500 miles away. Note to OKW for future reference.
Sierra688 1 year ago
If Russia lost, the main German army would come from the east front and reinforce the western. Germany would have had acsess to Oil, Steel and more manpower to work the Russian factories. It would have meant invading mainland Europe pointless and the war would have most likely dragged on untill the Americans nuked Berlin or some other major German city like they murdered half a million civilions at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, lets be glad that didint happen.
life0rdeath 1 year ago
@life0rdeath more like 240,000 dead from the hiroshima and nagasaki bombings but thats insignificant next to the loss of life that would have occured had the U.S. had to actually invade mainland japan
Chaser880 1 year ago
Hitler when young, his highest goal was to be an artist, he failed, he join the army and fought in ww1 and his not even a ranking officer or never got promoted. He only took power because his a great public speaker and damn lucky that it was a depressed times to make citizens fooled enough
magicstorm1 1 year ago
1:24 how did and Russian Survive? Damn , did you guys know that almost every soldier in Russia ended up being replaced in WWII?
whythewar1 1 year ago
@whythewar1 most Russians fought in the front was sent back to labor camp and worked to death. Stalin feared that his soldiers will rise up against him now that they seen how rich the western are. So much for sacrificing yourself for motherland.
magicstorm1 1 year ago
Hitler became an idiot after his sucess in germany
juliusyeung0330 1 year ago
We have a very bad case of armchair generals gathering here.If YOU would of led a great invasion army things like these wouldnt have happened because YOU guys are over-the-edge warfare geniuses.I suggest you warfare critics join the army and with ur oversized brains youll be generals put at the head of invading armies in no time
tanasexu 1 year ago
why put dramatic music on when german soldiers are freezing and dying ?
the numbers dont lie , those are 14.000.000 civillians died in russia by the germans while the germans in total had 8mln deaths all together in the whole ww2 .
think bout it , would it be a possibility for any country to murder 40 mln people , and when they get defeated , they get told off , and get theire country back . hmmm , the russians where mild on the murderers of 24 mln of theire fellow countryman .
isitcosimblack 1 year ago
This is very negative propaganda designed to make people hate Germany. Even the interviews are only of negative soldiers who hid to save themselves instead of the brave ones who actually did the fighting.
YappyRaccoon 1 year ago
its a nice change from the other documentaries that fucking praise the NAZIS like they were the best thing since slice bread. its nice to see nazis in their true light.
MrTheaterjunkee 1 year ago
@MrTheaterjunkee Does your hate, bigotry and ignorance make you feel good about yourself?
YappyRaccoon 1 year ago
YOUR ONE CONFUSED PIECE OF SHIT. FOR ONE THING I'M ANYTHING BUT IGNORANT, IF ME NOT LIKING NAZIS MAKES ME A BIGOT, YOU PRAISING THEM MAKES YOU A FUCKING NAZI RACIST SHIT BAG, BURN IN HELL FUCK FACE.
MrTheaterjunkee 1 year ago
@YappyRaccoon Are you actually praising Nazi Germany...? The Nazi's were evil.
Alexandros1294 11 months ago
@Alexandros1294 You are still parroting 1940s propoganda. You are brainwashed into calling all Germans 'nazis' even though only a microscopic percent of Germans were members of the nazi party. You may as well call all americans 'democrats' if you want to be consistent.
YappyRaccoon 11 months ago
@YappyRaccoon Sorry to tell you, but Hitler and the SS were Nazis. Hitler's German Army were fighting for the Nazi's therefore making them Nazi's and supporters of them as well. It was the German army, and the SS that committed the atrocities against the 14 million Jews, Slavs, and Poles. Who else can take responsibility?
Alexandros1294 11 months ago
@Alexandros1294 I've heard the 1940s propoganda already. I don't need your nagging. If you think about it even on a neanderthal level, you'll realize that your knee-jerk, cliche sermon of bigotry will not force anyone to agree with all your opinions. I just don't care what you think.
YappyRaccoon 11 months ago
@Alexandros1294 Nazi is a political ideology, to be a Nazi, you need to believe in Nationalistic Socialism, otherwise your not.
And bullshit did they commit such atrocities to the degree your saying. And they tried to save Europe from Communism, a worthy cause to which they deserve praise.
Feostru 8 months ago
@YappyRaccoon You shithead,microscopic percent?Ill kill you !
evilenka666 11 months ago
"The offensive BEGAN well..." Like aseglkj said, gotta love the ever so slightly sarcastic british narrator.
onedOLlarDuDE 1 year ago
The Nazis forgot one very important thing here - We, Russians, don't give up!
stratocasternik1985 1 year ago
Gotta love the ever so slightly sarcastic Brit narrator
aseglkj 1 year ago
Few people could attack Russia in Winter and win...Genghis Khan, Napoleon...Hitler was not one. Infact he had the army attack in the Russian winter, hoping his generals could make his "Blitzkrieg" succeseful. But the Russians as they retreated towards the middle of Russia they burnt their crops and homes. German soldiers were dieing of bullet, cold, and starvation.
XiahouDun1225 1 year ago
@XiahouDun1225 Germany was fighting against France, England, USA on the western front and in North Africa while actively supporting Japan and Indian National Army fight the USA and the British. Yet they almost won against the Russians. Napoleon or Khan did not have to do all that to defeat the Russians.
randominitializer 1 year ago
i can assure you if hitler had put the amount of share manpower that was on the eastern front in north africa,britain would have been finished. did you see how long it took them to even get back on the western mainland after they got fucking steam rolled in the innitial attack.north africa was a minor affair for hitler with only 2 german armies fighting on that front.the goal was the keep the brits and americans busy long enough for the main shock armies to conquer russia before he focused west.
MrTheaterjunkee 1 year ago
long live stalin
n8tivguitar 1 year ago
@n8tivguitar
Fuck Stalin. He was just as bad as Hitler.
eviltreemonster 1 year ago
@eviltreemonster but he won convincingly so hes better then hitler
n8tivguitar 1 year ago
@n8tivguitar
True. But only better at fighting wars. Not any better as a person.
eviltreemonster 1 year ago
@eviltreemonster are any of us. really!
n8tivguitar 1 year ago
@n8tivguitar
Probably not.
eviltreemonster 1 year ago
even though russia won the war, they lost far too many civilians and soldiers (pawns), total of around 21 million dead russians, and only about 3 million nazis. In my book, Germany raped them - double penetration style!
khingratsaphone 1 year ago
@khingratsaphone pawns?
specialedd13 1 year ago
@khingratsaphone
Uh, those numbers are incorrect. First of all Russia lost more civilians than soldiers, many of which starved to death during the war and died out of diseases. A lot of russians were also taken as slave labor by the Germans and died in Germany and other countries they were stationed in as workers. Second of all not all Germans were nazis, 4,3 million Germans died in battle or as prisoners, and another 3 million were taken as prisoners and later released.
McLarenMercedes 1 year ago
@khingratsaphone
You must be a troll. I can't imagine you being the real deal, although there are a lot of vermin festering the net.
Here's some fact for you. 80 percent of all German losses were on the Eastern Front and any German historian will tell you the same. That's where the Wehrmacht lost the war.
McLarenMercedes 1 year ago
Hitler shouldn't never had openned a second front, ukrainian first saw the nazi as liberators... after a year of bitter starvation they understood who were really the hitlers nazi evilness and it's a luck that he was so stupid as a commander. when he overruled the whole chain of command he doomed germany as a conqueror nation... thank god
axellegrand7777 1 year ago
I agree with one of the soldiers. Stalingrad was so senseless even by WWII standards..
hermanglimsher 1 year ago
I personally have no idea what Hitler was thinking when he attacked Russia. It was his own undoing when he attacked the only military force that could eventually crush them, which is exactly what happened.
deviantan021 1 year ago
hitler didnt think , he was a psychopath what do u expect ?
absolumer 1 year ago
@deviantan021
to make matters worse he declared war on the U.S.A after japan got into a war with them, forcing him to fight on 2 large fronts. This in the hope that making the U.S.A. fight on to fronts would break it apart. Talk about irony.
Ashandorath 1 year ago
There is no Good or Bad in War . IN War Emotion can only cause you death even if father and son in the opposite side they will kill to survive. i Think the World Develope and Things to survive ...
theif55 1 year ago
this isn't decisive battle u idiot
michael10972 2 years ago
I can agree that stalingrad was not THE decisive battle of the entire war, other battles on the eastern front, such as the gigantic battle at Kurst or the massive Russian offensive "Operation bagration" the all but destroyed army group center was more decisive. But Stalingrad was indeed also a decisive and very important one, especially recarding moral of the soldiers of both sides.
MissMan666 2 years ago
wenn die Deutschen sich auf Europa beschränklt hätten hätten sie die ganze welt gehabt
Pferdefan18 2 years ago
The Biggest tank battle was in kursk total over 2000 tanks ,the biggest infantry battles were fought in Russia and the eastern front.from 5 germans killed 4 were killed in the eastern front what are we talking about how can you compare the two fronts?
After occuping the weastern europe in a easy way (less then 4 months) all good and expierence german soldiers were transfered to the eastern front .only the new unprepared german youth stayed to in france,holland,belgian,norway,denmark ect......
amirturist25 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The allies Even couldnt capture Italy in the end of the war ,allies tried to Capture from septembar 1943 until the end of the war,What happend iIn Montecasino Did you forget?what happend In operation garden?how many americans killed in the battle of bulge?how many POW did the germans cuptured?
The germans lost the war in the west For two reasons
1-German were without fuel thay cuoldnt move there tanks and heavy artilary
2-thay had little plans -1 german figter to 5 allied .
amirturist25 2 years ago
The allies Even couldnt capture Italy in the end of the war ,allies tried to Capture from septembar 1943 until the end of the war,What happend iIn Montecasino Did you forget?what happend In operation garden?how many americans killed in the battle of bulge?how many POW did the germans cuptured?
The germans lost the war in the west For two reasons
1-German were without fuel thay cuoldnt move there tanks and heavy artilary
2-thay had little plans -1 german figter to 5 allied .
amirturist25 2 years ago
APPLEPIE978 why dont you speak about facts Please speek facts or dont speek bullshit .
all Europe was under Hitlers legs when Germany invaded Russsia,Germany occupied all of europe in only 4 months.The turning point of the war are the war and eevery body knows are the battles of kursk and Staljingrad so dont speek bull shit .American, Canadians,entered the war in the end of 1943 until that moment Russia was the only Country wich still stand against the Germans
amirturist25 2 years ago
All of Europe wasnt occupied by Hitler, Switzerland wasnt, Spain wasnt, Britain wasnt.
Canada joined the war in 1939 when along with the other British commonwealth countrys.
Russia certainly wasnt the only country standing against the Germans, Britain, Australia, New Zeland, Canada, South Africa and French, Polish and other troops that had fled to Britain to fight against the Nazis... Even Germans whent to Britain to help in the fight against Nazi Germany.
IntoTheWildStan 2 years ago
@IntoTheWildStan
Sweden wasn't either. But as long as we provided the German army with a lot of high quality steel we were exactly where Hitler wanted us. Besides he already had Norway and thereby control of the coast of the northern sea, atlantic and polar sea.
I say Winston Churchill saved the allies when he decided to keep fighting Germany in 1940 after the fall of France when many British politicians thought making peace with Hitler would be the best option.
McLarenMercedes 1 year ago
@McLarenMercedes actually it was the birtish pride that kept britain fighting.while those coward who wanted to make peace were german spies and supporters.that's even why churchill even became prime minister.he had shown some insane messed up things,thus,they thought that he would fail and gurantee victory for germany.really great luck for churchill that the germans were not even really serious on taking britain,it was all a cover up,a mistake that cause the germans alot of problems...
teslagod2003 1 year ago
You could never compare The allies soldiers with the Germans.The Germans occupieded all of Europe For 2 months,They had everything skilled,,Brave ,experienc,s,militancy ect.
In the WW2 Germany had 400 000 Dead
The allies Had 600 000O - counting only British and Americans Dead In only less then one year .FUNNY
In Russia Germany had 5 000 000 milion dead
Numbers here say Everything Without The russsians America and England would easy lose the war they had much luck.
amirturist25 2 years ago
without the allies Russia would be utterly destroyed since Germany would have been able to recall its army in France. Also Russia's strat was wait for the winter, after the winter Russia's army was totally inept, poorly armed, poorly trained, not to mention when the blitz in Russia started the Germans were out numbered 2 to 1 Infantry and Machine wise but still got pawned until winter.
APPLEPIE978 2 years ago
War is NOT necessary for human development, as a previous commentor stated. War only seems necessary because that's what we've been taught (brain-washed)I. But I fear a lot more killings than ever before is coming. So sad.
2242bzo 2 years ago
if only valkrie had worked damn hitler long live staffenberg
robbie4233334 2 years ago 2
Well a little before this and after Hitler was even more insane and less of his former self (not saying he was good )
Anyway he made his empire fall so much faster than it would have
Oldcartoons571 2 years ago
0:14 is grieving Polish girl crying for her dead sister lying in front of her, killed by nazi pigs. Stalinist Bolshevik pigs were just as bad.
christof139 2 years ago
Hitler was such a great general..... hell,... even as great as Napoleon....
so much like Napoleon that he even attacked Russia in winter too.......
...dumbass..... -.-
gstv87 2 years ago 44
haha good one, both their empires were shortlived
tecna64 2 years ago 7
Go figure, the allies were planning to assasinate him, multiple times actually, but always decided not to, or the time just wasnt right. Perhaps they did not decide to kill him because he was already fucking things up better than anybody could expect from a military perspective, it was figured that it would do a greater good if he kept making stupid mistakes and keps slaughtering his own army.
SSSDiaz7 2 years ago
Actually they feared that someone with more Military competence then Hitler would replace him. The allies were already steamrrolling the Nazis at that point so they didn't want to take a risky gamble.
As opposed to Hitler who had too much faith in luck and not enough in skill
shadowmare97 2 years ago
Hitler had no choice but to postpone his assault on Russia by almost 3 months due to the unwanted Italian intervention in Greece. This way the Germans were first forced to assist their dodgy ally. If Italy hadn't attacked Greece on their own and lost, the Balkan episode of WW2 would have been avoided, Moscow conquered on time, and the Russians in far deeper trouble for sure.
ArenaOfTheAncients 2 years ago
of course Hitler's decision to open a war on two fronts was not a wise one
Len1977gt 2 years ago
yh but if hitler had sent all his troop at the oli or at stglingra he wouldo off won but he mess up and hitler shouldo save most of his army whent they was gt beat and come back he did nt and loose gd im happey he lost
jedq 2 years ago
@gstv87
supply issues weren't as much as a problem for hitler as they were for napoleon, due to better technology. The problem is that the supply lines got cut and armies got encircled.
Ashandorath 1 year ago
@gstv87
they didnt attack it in winter, its that winter comes before they could finish the campaign, cause russia is too damn big.
hatemf23 1 year ago
@hatemf23 that's right, they meant the campaign wouldnt last for more then a couple of weeks, maybe even days, but they didnt anticipate the amount of resistance the russians would put up, so the battle raged on for month's, and then the worst winter for many decades hit russia, the russians were prepared for this in one way or another, the germans on the other hand, were not.
kornek21 1 year ago
@kornek21 well I dont think its that simple, they were very successful at first, capturing millions of prisoners, its only when they reached the borders of Moscow and fanatical resistance in Stalingrad that things began to change, the cold only helped.
hatemf23 1 year ago
@hatemf23 actually, many veterans claim that the cold was the major factor
kornek21 1 year ago
he dint attacked in winter the problem was the ofecive took too long
bajoe4 1 year ago
@gstv87 Napoleon attacked Russia in the summer, and so did Hitler. It was an early winter and unexpected results that messed them up. Also, don't compare Hitler to Napoleon when it comes to military history. Napoleon went to a military school to become a general, Hitler was just a douche.
Wastedgrunt 1 year ago
@gstv87 so what? do you think the russians have any advantage in cold and snowy areas? they do not. noone has. the winter makes the whole warfare more difficult for both sides. i mean the germans started the war in the year 1941. they had already faught under the conditions of russian winter before the battle of stalingrad and they had been successful! not the winter wins the war. the people do!
IchFresseMeinenKopf1 1 year ago
@IchFresseMeinenKopf1 that winter was particularly harsh if i remember correctly it was the coldest winter in like 100 years so that could make a difference i think. also b4 you underestimate the effects weather can have have you ever tried just living outside in the winter much less fight in it
Chaser880 1 year ago
@Chaser880 i know that fighing in winter is very difficult bur not just for the germans but for the russians also. many suggest that the russians won because of the winter. thats not true. in fact they lost even more people in winter than the germans.
IchFresseMeinenKopf1 1 year ago
@gstv87 He actually didnt attack russia in the winter time....... he attacked june 22nd. He your facts right.
MarineInfantry00 1 year ago
@gstv87 tooo bad he never ordered them to attack in the winter this battle lasted almost half a year into the winter. what he did was assume they would rofl stomp Stalingrad in a few days.
feeblemind 1 year ago
@gstv87 actually in the summer they attacked
TheProjektcc 1 year ago
@gstv87 yep he attacked at the same date without thinking what happent to napoleons army
VIKINGproductions101 1 year ago
mave.foorumi.eu
marjis3 1 year ago
@gstv87 Not everyone can be a genius of empire building and charisma like you are. Do we have become a hater like you to be as great as you?
YappyRaccoon 1 year ago
@gstv87 Your a dumbass.... he attacked russia in the summer tard!
MarineInfantry00 1 year ago 10
@gstv87 He actaully attacked in summer.. know your history..
LootsEr 1 year ago 10
@LootsEr
(gstv87)
Napoleon also attacked in the Summer, 24 June (Hitler 22 June), and like Hitler the setback came in December.
The point was that they both made the same mistake of overestimating the Russian winter, thinking it would be over before by then.
sansez 1 year ago
@gstv87 Sorry dude, but Hitler was not nearly as good as Napoleon. Napoleon and Hitler did not attack Russia in Winter.
Napoleon was a military and political genius... Hitler was just a political genius.
He started wars in many different fronts, he did not allow his generals to act freely (Paulus 80000 soldiers could be saved if not for Hitler)
VictumRoManius 7 months ago
Hitler underestimated the Russian people! RUssian women, men and children and everyone in Russia will stand for each other and their Motherland! That who comes with a sword to us - with the sword will be killed!
scoutabc 2 years ago 4
Mostly of the Russian forces was forced to fight, the Russian people was not even able to leave the city.
I dont call that patriotic, they were all forced. The soldiers fought without weapons from 1942 to 1945.
Morran09 2 years ago
At this battle, I agree, but many volunteered for the front. There are countless diary entries that read something to the effect of "I have no food, no weapons, barely any clothing. I could just surrender, but I will keep fighting for the Motherland. Farewell, my beloved family. Farewell, Motherland." Also, I have read German entries that even if surrounded and unarmed, Russians would keep fighting, which actually took a huge toll on German morale, because the Russians just wouldn't stop.
vladimir2145 2 years ago
Russian morale should of been low also with their treatment, there is some diaries from Berlin were an whole batallion was without weapons at Berlin in the end of the war... they kept using this tactic all the way throw the war and the Russian lost alot of soldiers in these tactic, no wonder the Germans couldn't hold them when there's so many soldiers storming everywhere.
Morran09 2 years ago
God bless all of these casualties of war.
vladimir2145 2 years ago
what you mean god bless the nazi casualtis right? or are you one of those westboro baptist church pigs
robbie4233334 2 years ago
I belong to no church, my friend. I am following the path of Buddha. All I am saying is that may we remember all of those who died in every war, and that I wish there will be true peace on earth one day. Most of my family died by being killed by the nazis in Russia in WWII. Because of this, I see the deeper meaning: hate cannot stop hate, and that we should remember EVERYONE that died. Remember that. And remember most of my family were killed by the nazis.
vladimir2145 2 years ago
Peace? Humanity will never allow peace. You seem like a very knowledgeable person. Thus you should understand that humans can never be peaceful.
Solechnaya 2 years ago
*sigh* I am afraid you are right. "As long as there are men, there will be wars." -Albert Einstein. I agree with you, but I still wish for it and encourage nonviolence. Ah, humanity...
vladimir2145 2 years ago
I hear you.
The problem with non-violence is that it tears apart (very slowly) all that man has created. War is the only way we can advance. The only way we have learned how to improve ourselves. Stop war, and you stop humanity.
Until we are no longer human, we will always need to have conflict.
Solechnaya 2 years ago
So then my question is: what is improvement? Comming up with better guns, better products, more efficient tools... of what? What about morality? And you say that it tears apart what man has made. Is that necessarily a bad thing? Is stopping humanity (by that I mean human morals. Or, at least, what they have become) really that bad? Is undoing our advancement / perversion of society going backwards... or advancing us closer to morality and brotherhood? Just saying the other side of the coin :-)
vladimir2145 2 years ago
War gives us something to do. Humans get extremely bored when there is only peace. They don't even try to develop morals at times like that. This is where conflict comes in. It gives us reasons to develop morals.
If you have brotherhood between all people, then they will eventually break, but with much more destructive results than if they have the chance to vent via war.
It sounds nice and all to have peace, but it does not help humanity develop.
Solechnaya 2 years ago
If that is the case, then I do not support human development. And what about Ancient China? While Europe was occupied in holy wars, China had only peace and experienced a gigantic boom economically, culturally, artistically, and, yes, morally, BECAUSE they were not burdened by the horrors of war. All the money and effort in war could be spent for true progress, not "venting." P.S. Aren't you enjoying this debate??? :-)
vladimir2145 2 years ago
I do love this debate, good sir. Debating is good.
But where did China learn to do all this? What gave them reason to?
Solechnaya 2 years ago
Stalingrad couldve been avoided, if Hitler had followed his Original Plan and that was to capture the Vast Oil Fields of the Caucasus, because the Oil there was the Life Blood of the Russian Economy.
EvilFingers 2 years ago 4
Or if he did not divide the Army and put the whole force on Stalingrad first, before to the oil fields.
TheSchwarzeRitter 2 years ago 3
That wouldnt work and it wouldnt help the Germans in forcing Stalin to surrender, because without Oil, the Russian Tank Armies would Grind to a Halt.
EvilFingers 2 years ago
actually the german army was poorly equiped, except for the SS troops. the other allied armies, such as romanains had equipment as old as the battle of waterloo. the germans were lucky the lasted so long.
ryankassulke 2 years ago
The German army was modern and good equipped, not equipped for winter yes, but they had the right weapons, the right tanks, but for urban combat they were not ready for it.
Morran09 2 years ago 2
Or first the oil fields with the entire Army, while cutting off the Volga south of Stalingrad, allowing eventual Blitzkrieg tactics while avoiding high casualties through close city combat as well as Russian Artillery and Snipers in a devastated and unfamiliar battle environment...
ArenaOfTheAncients 2 years ago
Comment removed
101djarum 2 years ago
thts bcuz hitler wuz dumb fuck he didnt think shit through he rushed into stuff
juggalo7jakz 3 years ago
bloodiest battle in human history, a battle the likes of which has never been seen and probably will never be seen again (I hope)
AlexAmerling19 3 years ago 3
Not to pick at what you said, but the Battle of Moscow in '41 actually had more soldiers involved and more casualties on both sides than the Battle of Stalingrad. In comparison, Moscow '41 destroyed more transport capability and so on plus the myth of German invincibility.
Dlugia2 3 years ago 2
really? well thanks for telling me
AlexAmerling19 3 years ago 2
but the wehrmacht wasnt destroyed at Moscow. It was defeated but it was still able to reestablish its lines. But after Stalingrad, an entire army was lost.
AlexAmerling19 3 years ago 2
This was the most important single battle of the Twentieth Century. I admire the stark and unrelenting courage of the soldiers of both sides. An epic battle for the ages.
Boelcke1916 3 years ago 32
Exactly. Another important battle followed though at Kursk
AlexAmerling19 3 years ago 2
@Boelcke1916 I'd say that the Battle of Britain was more decisive than this one. Even if Stalingrad fell, the Germans would still be defeated because the USA, with their huge industry and manpower, were dragged into the war. However, if Britain had fallen, the Allied invasion would have been much more complicated.
blasty137 1 year ago
@Boelcke1916 I wonder if both sides knew what they were participating in? The survivors can now look back and say "wow, I was part of that"
CrystalHunter1989 1 year ago
@CrystalHunter1989 i also wonder how the german veterans feels during that time, the massacre and destruction they made, seeing people suffering nothing to eat and homeless no respect for human lives..
SuperWeng10 1 year ago
Greatest battle of all time!
phrydoom 3 years ago
Good Video
nice informations..
npiin 3 years ago