The russians always talk of winning the war without allied help the soviets received allied aid it was a group effort. If the germans had not had the free french,UK,Americans and Canadian forces to deal with they would have had more troops to put on the eastern front.
the united states fought italy,japan,and germany those russian pussies were only fighting germany and they lost more than a million men in each battle . fuck russia
@dodgers1505 more than 80% of the german forces, including most of their best and brightest troops were bound at the eastern front, where they fought viciously against the russians. i dont want to diminish the individual bravery of the allied troops in the west, but the war in europe was mainly won and lost at the eastern front, hence the huge supply convoys to aid the russians. and the US were aided by the brits, aussies, canadians, free french, etc. and vice versa. dont be such a douche.
@darkawakening01 You are correct that 75% of German ground forces were destroyed on the eastern front. But what about the the german air force and navy? The US and UK destroyed more then 80% of both of them. You can look up the numbers yourself. Also the Germans were getting bombed for 3 years by the US and UK. Germany was in rubble by the end of 1944. and where did the Russians get their uniforms, food, steel, fuel and other raw materials? The US and UK.
yep Operation Platinfuchs might have altered things in the east but wasn´t pushed eager enough. A cut off of supplies would severely damaged the plans of the Soviets fighting back the Germans. The Japs agreement not attacking in the far East was another flaw which freed the Siberians and other fresh elite divisions who were sent to the battle of Moscow. General Manstein proposed a slow defensive retreat and let the Russians attack to maximize the casualities but Hitler
@dodgers1505 The Soviets were also against the Romanians,Hungarians,Slovaks and Italians as well. But Germany's allies were nowhere as good as the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS.
my father-in-law leonard Tinkham was at the battle of bulge 10th armored division, I have like 600 letters from him to his wife Irene Tinkham. I would like to write a book on these letters lynn Milsk Tinkham I have a backpack from a solider. deerhide on it , so interesting
my father-in-law leonard Tinkham was at the battle of bulge 10th armored division, I have like 600 letters from him to his wife Irene Tinkham. I would like to write a book on these letters lynn Milsk Tinkham
my father-in-law leonard Tinkham was at the battle of bulge 10th armored division, I have like 600 letters from him to his wife Irene Tinkham. I would like to write a book on these letters
if hitler had allied with russia instead of declaring war he couldve gone through russia and used it as a stepping stone into alaska and canada then down into main land america. it wouldve been a different outcome
Hitlers only mistake was taking the fight to the USSR. If not, Germany would have won. SS tactics and skills were way above the Allies troops. That's why Hitler kept the war going for 6 years.
By 1944 the Americans were not the inexperience rookies you are thinking of. They had fought successful campaigns in Africa and Italy and learned from their mistakes there. If this was talking about the Battle of Kasserine Pass or Anzio then yes they were unexperienced. However, this is 3 years after the U.S. had entered the war.
The Nazis could have defeated the Americans easy in the Battle of Bulge if only they had Fuel and Luftwaffe. The American lines were the weakest out of all the Allies the Americans became a target for the nazis as soon as they came into the war for been inexperianced. The Nazis would have done what they done in 1940 cut the 2 allied up and cut the British off from the Americans into a pocket it would be like Dunkirk, And the Americans would be chased back into the sea. However the NazisNOFUEL
And if their armies were not under the total command of a mad man. A mad man who set objectives that the German Army of 1944 were in no condition to capture
@hero1naka Yeah i agree, Most of Hitlers orders were thought to be insane by German Generals and Advisors. Hitler tried to use his Blitzreig warfare on the Allies agin. It had worked great in 1940 but the British and reovered from there humiliation at dunkirk and the U.S forces were prepared. Hitler didnt have the Luftwaffe air-support he didnt have the experianced troops, He didnt have the fule he needed. Hitlers blitzreig tactics were turned against him.
@hero1naka Thank god that fool Hitler wasnt killed early in the war, Otherwise he would have been replaced with a leader that knows what he is doing. Hitler was enough for Germany and the Axis to lose the war. His foolish tactics and insane gambles cost the Axis Alliance the War and cost the Countries there empires.
there is no doubt that that the russians fought hard in ww2 thats why they lost 20 million people but thats also why they took out a shitload of germans, im american but i respect what the russians in ww2
Ah, the good ol' days, when the History Channel was about HISTORY, and not Ice Road Truckers. The days when the only shows on were about the World Wars. I propose we create a new channel called 'The History Channel', and the History Channel can change to 'The Trucks and Axes Channel'.
let us not fight each other again - brother against brother. The Irish refused to fight the Deutsch in the Great War, Hitler let the British escape at Dunkirk. These and others are the Sons of Isaac and Jacob. There is another Enemy.
I wipe away a nostalgic tear as I think back to the wonderful years of the Cold War. You knew exactly where you stood. Mr. Khrushchev rattled his rockets and we all knew it was a game of bluff.
russia is in the top 3 of biggest armys ever. During WW1 russia had stationed over 6 million arms in and outside russia.
During ww2 the fall of berlin the russian had after crushing the germans a army of 2,5million arms of which around 600 thousand of them encircled berlin. Its one of the most destructive military invasion in history. Thats larger then the biggest military today concerning population grow since the 40s.
China has the biggest populated army today, around 2million arms.
Greetings everyone! My name is Tim and I am a military historian. I have just published a book all about the Battle of the Bulge. The title is: THE ARDENNES ON FIRE: VOLUME ONE. In it, I provide a huge amount of background information with regard to the massive German military buildup prior to launching this enormous assault. Then, I describe every aspect of day one of this epic military campaign. This book has 101 photos and many fine maps. You can get it through Amazon and Barnes and Noble.
Ahh, our great russian comrades! The ones we fought along side during the war and helped to defeat the nazis. Funny how no one seems to realize that after the war , we had something called"The Cold War", that it almost brought nuclear extinction to our country and possibly our planet, that it was U.S. and Russia , and if it did wipe put our country we would have no one to blame but ourselves. For it was us that helped "great Russia" defeat the only man that could have defeated communist russia!
@BandOfBrothers25 Remember, Brother, that was Stalin running the cold war first up, kruschev tried to shut it down but ike pushed him, so he pushed back against kennedy....then kennedy started to ease the situation. the threat was reactivated by reagan, who said he simply did not realize how afraid the kremlin was of nato.
but it was never ussr vs usa....it was a game of the leaders.
@BandOfBrothers25 Only thru the planned agenda of the country's leaders. The average Russian and American citizens wanted only to be left alone in peace.
ilverbroke what fool idea was that to send 200000 soldiers instead of keeping them to defend berlin... hitler was abad comander.. underestimate allies.. see how americans reacted.. with humor.. they knew they cant loos e from this army.. no airforce no artiliiery only rifles.. for 2 weeks germans stepped 5 kilometers.. after the sky was better it was all over.. this is the fact.. german soldier was prooved low level ability.. .. nuts!!!
i love listening to veterans talking of their exspeariences in the war and other past wars. I liked listening to my opa, who was a medic in the Dutch Army and who had fought in the Indonesian War of Independance.
The Soviets were trading with Nazi Germany right until the German attack in '41. The Soviets had no interest whatsoever in helping the allies against the Nazis. As a matter of fact - until Barbarossa - the Soviets and the Nazis were comrades in arms, helping each other in the rape of Poland.
Sending his last reserves westward rather than eastward was Hitlers final mistake.
but i consider invading russia as hitlers biggest mistake
he knew america would join the war soon and he figured he needed more resources to fight them
thats why he invaded russia
the dumbass thought he could take the country easily and have some resources to fight the americans
but in fact what he did is create another major powerful enemy and now had a war on 2 fronts germany never could send troops and supply s enough to all his fronts
If had stayed the adjective of the generals and taking moscow like they where suppose to do russia might have been defeated, to hitler it wasn't important
he kept saying in due time, we know if you seize the capitol & take of the goverment
it's pretty much a no brainer, who knows its all speculative war is like a chess game.
@xMETALHEADx124 actually no, hitler made two mistakes that cost him the war, stopping the attacking forces at dunkirk and attacking the ussr, the russians had 4 time the population that germany had, and in 1944 the russians had 1.5 million men attacking a meager 400000 germans
what cost hitler the war was bad planning, he tried to blitz russia
like britain, if look closely at the progression of the war hitler was winning
huge amounts of soviets forces where destroyed, instead of seizing the capitol moscow hitler kept diverting force & splitting the army, stalinggrad was a mistake
even though vulga was a transport hub, it was hardly that important for hitler it was a symbol because of the name bad tactics
@xMETALHEADx124 are you kiding 1st of all the race that suffered the most has to be poland three quarters of their population were wiped out so that means all the polish people now are the decendants of those 1 quater that were left alive .It's in the guniness book of world records. Yes, USSR lost 20 mil russia was faced with exremination The russian soldier was fierce cunning tough rarely cried out when shot which makes sence since your crying is going to mark you. germans described the
@xMETALHEADx124 offensive against them they were a lot tougher & especially resourceful than you think such savagery brutality killing constantly maddening
@Kilooscarromeo i never said the Russians werent good fighters because theres no doubt they were but with out the allied offensive to open the western front it was over for them
@xMETALHEADx124 i guess will belive what we belive I can't see it though wouldn't be the 1st time it was tried Napolian theres just noway. i don't think russia could ever be taken by any army just too big too many people & they are not cowards like most countries civilian pop the allies no doubt helped but russia would have eventually wipe them out. germans were extremely scared of be taken by russians thats why most of them surrendered to the americans
@Kilooscarromeo an army's size isnt everything i think America proved that to japan and the germans at the time also had a huge army. and the reason why they were scared of being taken by the russians was because they killed their pow's like they were just animals only 10% of german pow's in russian camp's made it home
@xMETALHEADx124 The Russians kicked ass at Stalingrad and held on at Leningrad. Tough people! The Germans, though, spread themselves very thin on many fronts which was undoubtedly their greatest undoing.
@xMETALHEADx124 Russia had germany on the run since the heir loses at stalingrad and kursk both in 1943. And the allies did not breach the west until 1944. do you mean north africa and italy?
@xMETALHEADx124 No, they wouldn't. When western Allies landed in Normandy, Soviets were in the process of destroying what was left of Army Group Centre, during Operation Bagration. There was just NO WAY for Germans to defeat Soviets at that point.
@xqtr74 no way??? the germans still had a entire armored division in France plus a entire army in Italy and Germany repelling british bombing and preventing potential invasions if they really had to the germans would have pulled everything they had in to being the soviets and by that time it would be summer and the soviets would still be under supplied and battle worn they would have given up or been destroyed
@Pentagon1311 no not really lol the germans moved the majority of there heavy artillery tanks and infantry to the coast of Germany leaving France to a much smaller number of soldiers and lighter on armored and artillery support why did they do this?? the Americans and British made it look like they were getting ready to invade germany by sea so Hitler prepared for it big mistake he left german force in france much weaker then he should have and when the U.S airborne cut off supplys to
@xMETALHEADx124 You seem to forget the fact the Red Army destroyed 70% of germans fighting force... About 4 millions German soldiers died and 3 million more were taken as POWs. The Americans achieved a pyrrhic victory on D-day as they lost more soldiers than the Germans even though they outnumbered the Nazis in numbers, that tells you something. If Hitler wasn't stupid enough to invade Russia you and me would be speaking German and hailing his son on a daily basis.
@Pentagon1311 wrong the u.s army did not lose more men then the nazi's on d-day
u.s had 2,499 dead
nazi's had estimated 4,000 to 5,000 dead + 3,000 prisoners taken by allies
research before you say things and im not say that the Russia didn't help I'm saying they couldn't have won with out us and i do think that with out the red army the allies would have lost. The only battle the American's ever lost more men then the enemy in WW2 was iwo jima. like i said research before talk
@Pentagon1311 well i was talking about americans only i never said anything about the allies as a whole + they didnt make up 50% of the invasion force there were more Americans there then any other allied nation and one more thing you dont know what your talking about you're reading Wikipedia... and one more thing the USSR lost a total of 8,668,000 fatalities just military Germans had 3,250,000 and that was through out the whole war. thats saying something huh?
@xMETALHEADx124 I'm not trying to compare who lost more because it's obvious that the Russians did, my point was that Russia would have not lost the war the if it wasn't for the Americans but it wasn't the other way around and i don't know why are you pulling these numbers out of your ass but yes other countries together did make up for 50% of the total force.
For example on D-Day only 73,000 soldiers of 156,000 were American... You can check other sites as this isn't only on wikipedia.
@Pentagon1311 with out the Allies russia would have been fucked they couldnt have fought the Japanese the Germans and Italians by them selves + the french army was complying to the nazi commanders and helping them fight.
@xMETALHEADx124 The Russians on the other hand, except for some few US supplies fought with little direct help from other countries throughout the war and managed to destroy the bulk of the german army. Only in Stalingrad one million germans lost their lives and an ENTIRE ARMY was wiped out...
@Pentagon1311 Americans did the same thing in Italy the destroyed not just the Italian army but all german forces there and im not pulling numbers out my ass btw they are from books i have writen by historians. and if the Americans and the other allied forces wouldnt have opened the other front there was a entire german army 2 times the size of what the russians had left they lost so many people they were leting people from the ages of 12-65 join their military and fight including women
@xMETALHEADx124 The italian army was a joke, they even lost to the greeks... That doesn't change the fact that the Russian army almost single-handedly destroyed most of the german army when they were at their best and after that the allies just picked out the pieces afterwards.
There is no way USA would have won in Europe if the best of the german army were not destroyed in the Eastern Front. The same cannot be said about the Russians, they were doing just fine before Normandy.
@Pentagon1311 im sorry your just so dumb.. the russia's wouldnt have won with out us and we wouldnt have won with out the russia's. i've been saying that i'll always say that. just please shutup and go back to middle school you have no clue what your talking about.
@xMETALHEADx124 Yes and you're so smart, reading history books and so on but your username is metalhead. and my english is better even though i'm not even american so think again about who's supposed to go back to middle school...
"the russia's wouldnt have won with out us and we wouldnt have won with out the russia's."
Yes, they won at Stalingrad but it was not until the Normandy invasion that the Russians could undertake a serious offensive capable of throwing the Germans out of the USSR.
@hero1naka the war on the eastern front was lost by dec 1941. whatever the allies might have done to help, russia would always have won in the end. their wernt enough trucks in the whole of europe to supply an army deep into russia. also, the fact germany was halted at moscow before germany's war effort was divided betweeen the two fronts shows they would have lost the war even if churchil had left them to it.
(i suppose the kursk tank battle is the best counter eg to your point).
@abrelosojo ..and before Kursk there was the 'Battle of Britain, Battle of the Atantic , Invasion of Africa, Sicily and finally the allied bombing campaign of german homeland 1943-45' which cost germany 1/3 of it's total resources to combat ie; withdrawl of fighter units into the interior of nazi germany from the east front as well as other fronts. And don't forget that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were 'BFF' allies prior to 1941' thru Ribbentropp Molotov Pact Both invaded Poland together.
@fluffy1931 if you're saying those listed battles had an effect on the success of barbarossa i dont agree. The B of B weakened the German airforce but not enough to tip the balence on the eastern front, mainly because it was a land war. Rommel and Dönitz's wars were comparative side shows, and given little resources. Both had trouble gaining the attention of Hitler.
During 43 the western front came into play, and ye the biggest effect by far was the bombing, but Russia had won by then.
@abrelosojo ...,dude, even before the Battle of Britain both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were 'BFF" allies together thru the Ribbentropp Molotov Pact .Already they had invaded Poland together in 1939' and the Soviet Union was already cockblocking Finland. Russia was it's own worst enemy. Don't blame the west for the Soviet Unions position either strategically or tactically during ww2 way over rated.
@fluffy1931 Nazi Germany hated the slavs( Russians). They weren't best friends the pact was simply made so that Germany wasn't fighting a two front war and it gave Russia time to build up an industry fit for war against a power like Germany. Germany respected Britain and the US and didn't expect them to declare war.
@racewalker9999 keep sniffing glue dude. The combined invasion of Poland kicked off the start of ww2. The invasion began on 1 September 1939, one week after the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, and ended on 6 October 1939 with Germany and the Soviet Union dividing and annexing the whole of Poland.
Your fantasy about what the US expected in the aftermath of invasion of Poland is without any fact or foundation. The Soviet Union since 1922' was helping Germany re-arm.
@fluffy1931 I am not saying the German invasion of Poland did not start the war, what I am saying is Germany and the Soviet Union hated each other. Germany was capitalist, USSR was communist two ideas that are directly opposite of each other. Sure the USSR was helping re arm Germany but out of this deal they were getting high quality steel. The US gave loans to Germany. Does this mean they were also best friends?
@kmwmlw Kursk was bleed out battle. Hence, twenty German divisions were move to Italy to stop the US/UK invasion. If US/UK had not invade Italy. Hilter would have move these twenty divisions to Kursk as previous planned.
@Pentagon1311 the beaches of Normandy the german force's there had no choice but to surrender in that area. Hitler then tryed to send more troops over to stop them but Patton's 3rd army cut them off leaving the u.s army to basically cut through german forces in france who had no support
@xMETALHEADx124 That is not true. Wehrmacht was continuously pushed back on the eastern front after the battle at Kursk in July 43. That was 11 months before D-day. The red army would have defeted Germany without a front in France. Please also read up on the Bagration Read army offensive in the summer of 44.
@Kahavia You are correct that 75% of German ground forces were destroyed on the eastern front. But what about the the german air force and navy? The US and UK destroyed more then 80% of both of them. You can look up the numbers yourself. Also the Germans were getting bombed for 3 years by the US and UK. Germany was in rubble by the end of 1944. and where did the Russians get their uniforms, food, steel, fuel and other raw materials? The US and UK.
@xMETALHEADx124 i don't know what history you know,but the Soviet Union pushed back the nazis way quicker(from 1943 until the landing from Normandy,the Red Army advanced from the stepes of Caucaz nearly to the german-polish border) than the western Allies did.I know you are proud of being american and all that,but you cannot deny the historical proof.
@Antimanele104 your relies that the d-day landings was june 6 1944. the allies on the western front at the beginning of ww2 1941 -1943 had pushed the axis out of africa and italy had been taken out of the war. then in 1944 to 1945 pushed them back to germany then decided to wait 2 months so the red army could take berlin and get revenge for Stalingrad right? and if you time what the allies did starting at june 6 1944 to 1945 they did the same amount of work with less casualties and faster
@Antimanele104 Your "Facts" are flawed. Yes the Russians pushed the Nazi's out. However after Stalingrad and the loss of 6th Army, the remaining German forces were ill supplied, a majority were 2nd line soldiers. With no mobility options, had no means to counter or repel the Russian attacks and were completely out gunned. The top German Infantry were in the West for the Invasion and for the Ardennes offensive.
@xMETALHEADx124 Well I am not so sure about that. The soviets repelled the German invasion at Stalingrad without the help of their allies. To be more specific, the Americans and the British were purposely delaying their aid. After that, whether or not Soviets would fall is open for discussion.
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.
0:24 : greatest landbattle ever fought by american troops in the 20st century - for Germany it´s not in the top10, may be top100 - and so are the losses.
the germans should have sent the troops used for the battle of the bulge and sent them to the eastern front this obviously wouldnt have won the war but maybe prolonged it for another year or so
Like I posted in a related topic on the Battle of the Bulge in YouTube, the Ardennes Offensive wouldve been successful, if the Germans didnt have to forage for Fuel for their Panzers, which was a Logistical Nightmare for them.
It would have helped if they had fuel, but they still wouldnt have won. They simply didnt have enough men to put into the attack. Had they gone farther, they probably would have been cut off.
Actually, they did have enough men for the drive to Antwerp, but like I said Fuel was their #1 problem and also they had to take small windy roads and hills and those eat alot of Gas and Time, especially when they used the wrong Panzer (Tiger II) for such an Offensive.
Besides Logistics, there were other problems that led to a Failed Offensive, such as the Massarce of Unarmed US Soldeirs by the SS and the Failed Attempt to place US Speaking German Troops behind US Lines were all captured.
They did have enough men to make it to Antwerp, but not enough to gaurd their flanks. Had they made it to Antwerp, The Third Army to the south and the First and ninth Armies to the North would have broken through their lines and cut off the advance. As an army advances in a manner like what happened in the Bulge, men need to be left behind to gaurd the flanks.
Their Flanks wouldve been stable. if the capture of Bastogne had fallen as planned, thus this would free up several Divisions and Battlions and place them where they are needed the most...that is what the Germans wanted when Bastogne was surrouinded, but as Fate has it, Fate was against the Germans.
this battle was totally dependent on supply. and as you said if the fuel line had been 100% german's would have probably won and the war would have gone on.
But like everything in there are alot if's if the panzers been deployed during d-day like rommel had planned then the d-day landings would have been a slaughter.
@xwingclass Nonsense - the Germans could not even keep pace with Russian production, which was half of American production (if that), other than in tanks. They had essentially no air forces left. Even if they had an endless supply of gas, the first clear day would have brought on them a complete rain of ruin. This attack, like most German attacks, was part of an idiotic strategy hatched by a vain corporal. The Germans are the Buffalo Bills of military strategy.
it is the wrong approach to look for a point in this offensive in military terms, rather it is part of the ultimate betrayal of hitler against the german people. at the time the only thing on the minds of most germans was to get conquered by the western allies, not the soviets. hitler had accepted deep down that the 'master race' had failed (him), he said the stronger eastern race prevailed, so it was theirs to win the ultimate prize in the giant struggle for world domination among the races
TBH, an actual "Watch on the Rhine" would have been the better strategy, holding the Allies off as best they could, with armored and motorised reserves used to brunt any spec ops or airborne attempts to get by. The offensive was essentially useless and self-defeating.
atleast you people had soldiers while my country was occupied by japanese forces...we could only rely on british soldiers..but they were wrong and underestimate the japanese..
more than 3 year my country was ruled under japanese
Guy look at the map at 1:27 !! the map is wrong !! Germany looked diffrent !! Parts of east Brandenburg and east prussia are missing this is a modern germany map and not one from the past!!
Spoken like a true xenophobe....well done that man/boy/child....well done. Read more instead of watching films. Read about the terror caused by the Nazi secret Police. Things like: "You will join the army or all your family will be sent to a concentration camp including your pet rabbit! Seriously.......well apart from the rabbit bit.
Yep!! Remember Volksgranadiers had no connection with the party they were just local people fighting for their country! They werent Nazis they were Hitlers slaves like the children! If you disagree blame Nosterdamos not me!
3 milions soviet troops marching down from the east. over 1 million allied troops coming up from the west. the fact that it took 2 years for complete surrender of Germany proved the resilience and resoursefulness of Germanic tribes.
are you not forgeting the dodge and studebaker truks they got. they where vital fore USSRs mobility.transporting troops and suplies to the front lines.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
if anyone should be thanking anyone its US and Britain. without russia the british and US would be speaking german now. but i hear what you saying no doubt US and british equipment helped the russians particularly moving large russian armies but at the end of the day the russians held down over 150 german divisions.
True the Eastern Front had a completely different scale.
Hell the 6th Army alone, one army out of several armies in one Army Group, out of 3 Army Groups, on the Eastern Front numbered already 250,000 soldiers.
@sprucepantherkmt no you are. if we didn't enter the war the germans could have focused all there efforts on the eastern front. and the japanese would invaded russia from the other side.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
You're right DuthPetriot! 80% of the German military strength was on the russian front. Yes the american lend-lease was helpful for the USSR but think of it. The USSR built over 100 000 tanks during WW2. How important were a few outdated good for nothing grant tanks then? The only thing helpful the USA gave the USSR was food and aircraft.
And trucks, half-tracks, and everything else the Russians needed to survive until they could get the war going their way. 100,000 tanks aren't very useful if there's no food.
There were more than just British and Americans fighting against Germany and still the other nations that made supplies for the Allies as well. The US, through the Lend Lease Act, supplied the Soviets with weapons, tanks, supplies, etc. for the fight against Germany so you cannot say that Americans did 15% as well as Britain when it was fighting Nazi Germany on the skies and on the ground in North Africa when France fell to Germany.
it would be better to assume that the american contribution to defeating the nazis was at least 50% because the americans propped up Stalins regime with foodstuffs and all sorts raw materials and vehicles in vast quantities. The Soviet Union would have collapsed without american aid.
Just look at how many German divisions and aircraft were where deployed where each year 1941- 1945, gives a fairly good hint of who the Germans at least thought the worst threat.
It is tiring to meet these arguments all over the net, not just here, various Nationalists pounding their chests claiming they beat the Germans, and stupid Neo-Nazis spouting their drivel...
I am Danish, we did absolutely nothing TBH, and that is how we survived as an independant nation, so it worked.
Nybyggeren: Denmark survived as a independent nation only because other peoples won it back for you. It would be polite if you could give respect to them for it.
False. Britain was alone until spring of 41 when Yugoslavia and Greece joined in. After that, they were alone for a short time, but was relieved when the Germans attacked Russia on June 22 1941.
Fantastic video! I loved it. Thanks for posting. My name is Tim, and I have just published a book all about the huge German buildup just prior to the launching of this massive offensive operation. The title of my book is: WACHT AM RHEIN. You can purchase it through Amazon or Barnes and Noble through their online website. Or, you can also purchase it through my publisher, Xlibris.
Oh and also had they deployed more troops on the west front it would of meant the Russians would of got to Berlin even faster.
Either way Germany was screwed. They simply could not handle all that was thrown at them. Their industry was being bombed night and day, and were facing multiple enemies alone.
Were as the US in WW2 could handle being on more then one front easily. Industry was never damaged, we had allies helping us. Not "allies" a few thousand miles away from us. Among other things.
The russians always talk of winning the war without allied help the soviets received allied aid it was a group effort. If the germans had not had the free french,UK,Americans and Canadian forces to deal with they would have had more troops to put on the eastern front.
sass225 5 days ago
never heard of this show... return it!!!
darthdj31 1 week ago
hate it when documentaries talk about Nazi Artillery or Tanks or Soldiers...
Nazi -> National Socialist -> Member of the political Party ->
Nazi Artillery = National Socialist Artillery... o.Ó
however not a bad documentary
ThugCologne 1 month ago
Was Bastogne fought over when the Germans went through the Ardennes during the 1940 invasion?
Firepower357 3 months ago
The lack of FUEL primarily killed the German offensive...
IMNODOCTOR 4 months ago
the united states fought italy,japan,and germany those russian pussies were only fighting germany and they lost more than a million men in each battle . fuck russia
dodgers1505 4 months ago
@dodgers1505 more than 80% of the german forces, including most of their best and brightest troops were bound at the eastern front, where they fought viciously against the russians. i dont want to diminish the individual bravery of the allied troops in the west, but the war in europe was mainly won and lost at the eastern front, hence the huge supply convoys to aid the russians. and the US were aided by the brits, aussies, canadians, free french, etc. and vice versa. dont be such a douche.
darkawakening01 3 months ago
@darkawakening01 You are correct that 75% of German ground forces were destroyed on the eastern front. But what about the the german air force and navy? The US and UK destroyed more then 80% of both of them. You can look up the numbers yourself. Also the Germans were getting bombed for 3 years by the US and UK. Germany was in rubble by the end of 1944. and where did the Russians get their uniforms, food, steel, fuel and other raw materials? The US and UK.
moonshot926 3 months ago
@moonshot926
yep Operation Platinfuchs might have altered things in the east but wasn´t pushed eager enough. A cut off of supplies would severely damaged the plans of the Soviets fighting back the Germans. The Japs agreement not attacking in the far East was another flaw which freed the Siberians and other fresh elite divisions who were sent to the battle of Moscow. General Manstein proposed a slow defensive retreat and let the Russians attack to maximize the casualities but Hitler
celshad 1 month ago
@moonshot926
wanted the Wehrmacht to attack and push further. Stalingrad and Kursk where senseless battles, which widended the gaps within the lines.
celshad 1 month ago
@dodgers1505 The Soviets were also against the Romanians,Hungarians,Slovaks and Italians as well. But Germany's allies were nowhere as good as the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS.
JimbobHarrigan1984 1 week ago
my father-in-law leonard Tinkham was at the battle of bulge 10th armored division, I have like 600 letters from him to his wife Irene Tinkham. I would like to write a book on these letters lynn Milsk Tinkham I have a backpack from a solider. deerhide on it , so interesting
lynntink63 6 months ago in playlist lol
my father-in-law leonard Tinkham was at the battle of bulge 10th armored division, I have like 600 letters from him to his wife Irene Tinkham. I would like to write a book on these letters lynn Milsk Tinkham
lynntink63 6 months ago in playlist lol
my father-in-law leonard Tinkham was at the battle of bulge 10th armored division, I have like 600 letters from him to his wife Irene Tinkham. I would like to write a book on these letters
lynntink63 6 months ago in playlist lol
if hitler had allied with russia instead of declaring war he couldve gone through russia and used it as a stepping stone into alaska and canada then down into main land america. it wouldve been a different outcome
kayak1969p 6 months ago
Hitlers only mistake was taking the fight to the USSR. If not, Germany would have won. SS tactics and skills were way above the Allies troops. That's why Hitler kept the war going for 6 years.
adythewolf 6 months ago
@martynrobin
By 1944 the Americans were not the inexperience rookies you are thinking of. They had fought successful campaigns in Africa and Italy and learned from their mistakes there. If this was talking about the Battle of Kasserine Pass or Anzio then yes they were unexperienced. However, this is 3 years after the U.S. had entered the war.
hero1naka 10 months ago
The Nazis could have defeated the Americans easy in the Battle of Bulge if only they had Fuel and Luftwaffe. The American lines were the weakest out of all the Allies the Americans became a target for the nazis as soon as they came into the war for been inexperianced. The Nazis would have done what they done in 1940 cut the 2 allied up and cut the British off from the Americans into a pocket it would be like Dunkirk, And the Americans would be chased back into the sea. However the NazisNOFUEL
martynrobin121 11 months ago
@martynrobin121
And if their armies were not under the total command of a mad man. A mad man who set objectives that the German Army of 1944 were in no condition to capture
hero1naka 11 months ago
@hero1naka Yeah i agree, Most of Hitlers orders were thought to be insane by German Generals and Advisors. Hitler tried to use his Blitzreig warfare on the Allies agin. It had worked great in 1940 but the British and reovered from there humiliation at dunkirk and the U.S forces were prepared. Hitler didnt have the Luftwaffe air-support he didnt have the experianced troops, He didnt have the fule he needed. Hitlers blitzreig tactics were turned against him.
martynrobin121 11 months ago
@hero1naka Thank god that fool Hitler wasnt killed early in the war, Otherwise he would have been replaced with a leader that knows what he is doing. Hitler was enough for Germany and the Axis to lose the war. His foolish tactics and insane gambles cost the Axis Alliance the War and cost the Countries there empires.
martynrobin121 11 months ago
there is no doubt that that the russians fought hard in ww2 thats why they lost 20 million people but thats also why they took out a shitload of germans, im american but i respect what the russians in ww2
Samseal16 11 months ago
As Churchill said right after his 'Iron Curtain' speech, 'We killed the wrong pig'.
odanak100 1 year ago
it seems that german troops also managed to hit the mic wire durning the offensive.
nokuhobune 1 year ago
Ah, the good ol' days, when the History Channel was about HISTORY, and not Ice Road Truckers. The days when the only shows on were about the World Wars. I propose we create a new channel called 'The History Channel', and the History Channel can change to 'The Trucks and Axes Channel'.
TheCoalescent 1 year ago 13
@TheCoalescent
Legoman3453 3 months ago
@TheCoalescent LOL i totally agree. there is no iceroadtruckers in the word history!
Legoman3453 3 months ago
let us not fight each other again - brother against brother. The Irish refused to fight the Deutsch in the Great War, Hitler let the British escape at Dunkirk. These and others are the Sons of Isaac and Jacob. There is another Enemy.
tirionson1 1 year ago
I wipe away a nostalgic tear as I think back to the wonderful years of the Cold War. You knew exactly where you stood. Mr. Khrushchev rattled his rockets and we all knew it was a game of bluff.
gwilymrj 1 year ago
@lonepantherkmt haha. you're speachless cus i proved you wrong. lmao. you're pathetic
bikepeddlar6 1 year ago
If you jump in a pool, you will get wet.
ValkiryeMax 1 year ago
russia is in the top 3 of biggest armys ever. During WW1 russia had stationed over 6 million arms in and outside russia.
During ww2 the fall of berlin the russian had after crushing the germans a army of 2,5million arms of which around 600 thousand of them encircled berlin. Its one of the most destructive military invasion in history. Thats larger then the biggest military today concerning population grow since the 40s.
China has the biggest populated army today, around 2million arms.
Armigo91 1 year ago
Greetings everyone! My name is Tim and I am a military historian. I have just published a book all about the Battle of the Bulge. The title is: THE ARDENNES ON FIRE: VOLUME ONE. In it, I provide a huge amount of background information with regard to the massive German military buildup prior to launching this enormous assault. Then, I describe every aspect of day one of this epic military campaign. This book has 101 photos and many fine maps. You can get it through Amazon and Barnes and Noble.
SWALE1984 1 year ago
Seems just like Fall & winter Greater Lower Mainland Vancouver, BC Canada I like the fog in the mornings suprisingly similar really nice there
Kilooscarromeo 1 year ago
ja ja die amerikaner und englaender retter der welt. das ich nicht lache.
BigLouieLittlePhilly 1 year ago
Ahh, our great russian comrades! The ones we fought along side during the war and helped to defeat the nazis. Funny how no one seems to realize that after the war , we had something called"The Cold War", that it almost brought nuclear extinction to our country and possibly our planet, that it was U.S. and Russia , and if it did wipe put our country we would have no one to blame but ourselves. For it was us that helped "great Russia" defeat the only man that could have defeated communist russia!
BandOfBrothers25 1 year ago
@BandOfBrothers25 Remember, Brother, that was Stalin running the cold war first up, kruschev tried to shut it down but ike pushed him, so he pushed back against kennedy....then kennedy started to ease the situation. the threat was reactivated by reagan, who said he simply did not realize how afraid the kremlin was of nato.
but it was never ussr vs usa....it was a game of the leaders.
kaitimebb 1 year ago
@BandOfBrothers25 Only thru the planned agenda of the country's leaders. The average Russian and American citizens wanted only to be left alone in peace.
hiyosilver100 1 year ago
ilverbroke what fool idea was that to send 200000 soldiers instead of keeping them to defend berlin... hitler was abad comander.. underestimate allies.. see how americans reacted.. with humor.. they knew they cant loos e from this army.. no airforce no artiliiery only rifles.. for 2 weeks germans stepped 5 kilometers.. after the sky was better it was all over.. this is the fact.. german soldier was prooved low level ability.. .. nuts!!!
JIMY45GR 1 year ago
i love listening to veterans talking of their exspeariences in the war and other past wars. I liked listening to my opa, who was a medic in the Dutch Army and who had fought in the Indonesian War of Independance.
adamusprime1001 1 year ago
The Soviets were trading with Nazi Germany right until the German attack in '41. The Soviets had no interest whatsoever in helping the allies against the Nazis. As a matter of fact - until Barbarossa - the Soviets and the Nazis were comrades in arms, helping each other in the rape of Poland.
Sending his last reserves westward rather than eastward was Hitlers final mistake.
cfodk 1 year ago
@cfodk
This is treu
but i consider invading russia as hitlers biggest mistake
he knew america would join the war soon and he figured he needed more resources to fight them
thats why he invaded russia
the dumbass thought he could take the country easily and have some resources to fight the americans
but in fact what he did is create another major powerful enemy and now had a war on 2 fronts germany never could send troops and supply s enough to all his fronts
bleushift 1 year ago
If had stayed the adjective of the generals and taking moscow like they where suppose to do russia might have been defeated, to hitler it wasn't important
he kept saying in due time, we know if you seize the capitol & take of the goverment
it's pretty much a no brainer, who knows its all speculative war is like a chess game.
readynow12345 1 year ago
@cfodk instead of keeping a good relation with russia wich might have supported germany against the allies
bleushift 1 year ago
@cfodk And the US was trading with Japan right up until they bombed us with the steel we sent over to them.
hiyosilver100 1 year ago
cant put the value of air superiority high enough.
satanic666sonic 1 year ago
the ussr had the worst of ww2 but with out the american/british offensive they would have fallin
xMETALHEADx124 1 year ago 21
@xMETALHEADx124 actually no, hitler made two mistakes that cost him the war, stopping the attacking forces at dunkirk and attacking the ussr, the russians had 4 time the population that germany had, and in 1944 the russians had 1.5 million men attacking a meager 400000 germans
Senorize 1 year ago
what cost hitler the war was bad planning, he tried to blitz russia
like britain, if look closely at the progression of the war hitler was winning
huge amounts of soviets forces where destroyed, instead of seizing the capitol moscow hitler kept diverting force & splitting the army, stalinggrad was a mistake
even though vulga was a transport hub, it was hardly that important for hitler it was a symbol because of the name bad tactics
readynow12345 1 year ago
@xMETALHEADx124 are you kiding 1st of all the race that suffered the most has to be poland three quarters of their population were wiped out so that means all the polish people now are the decendants of those 1 quater that were left alive .It's in the guniness book of world records. Yes, USSR lost 20 mil russia was faced with exremination The russian soldier was fierce cunning tough rarely cried out when shot which makes sence since your crying is going to mark you. germans described the
Kilooscarromeo 1 year ago
@xMETALHEADx124 offensive against them they were a lot tougher & especially resourceful than you think such savagery brutality killing constantly maddening
Kilooscarromeo 1 year ago
@Kilooscarromeo i never said the Russians werent good fighters because theres no doubt they were but with out the allied offensive to open the western front it was over for them
xMETALHEADx124 1 year ago
@xMETALHEADx124 i guess will belive what we belive I can't see it though wouldn't be the 1st time it was tried Napolian theres just noway. i don't think russia could ever be taken by any army just too big too many people & they are not cowards like most countries civilian pop the allies no doubt helped but russia would have eventually wipe them out. germans were extremely scared of be taken by russians thats why most of them surrendered to the americans
Kilooscarromeo 1 year ago
@Kilooscarromeo an army's size isnt everything i think America proved that to japan and the germans at the time also had a huge army. and the reason why they were scared of being taken by the russians was because they killed their pow's like they were just animals only 10% of german pow's in russian camp's made it home
xMETALHEADx124 1 year ago
@xMETALHEADx124
Yes, but the germans were as bad or worse to prisoners, and far worse to civilians. I've read stats on this. best pow camps were british, supposedly.
kaitimebb 1 year ago
@xMETALHEADx124 The Russians kicked ass at Stalingrad and held on at Leningrad. Tough people! The Germans, though, spread themselves very thin on many fronts which was undoubtedly their greatest undoing.
hiyosilver100 1 year ago
@xMETALHEADx124 Russia had germany on the run since the heir loses at stalingrad and kursk both in 1943. And the allies did not breach the west until 1944. do you mean north africa and italy?
megaspencer 1 year ago
@megaspencer no with out america germany would have sooner or later folded or quit after pushing the germans out
xMETALHEADx124 1 year ago
@xMETALHEADx124 No, they wouldn't. When western Allies landed in Normandy, Soviets were in the process of destroying what was left of Army Group Centre, during Operation Bagration. There was just NO WAY for Germans to defeat Soviets at that point.
xqtr74 1 year ago
@xqtr74 no way??? the germans still had a entire armored division in France plus a entire army in Italy and Germany repelling british bombing and preventing potential invasions if they really had to the germans would have pulled everything they had in to being the soviets and by that time it would be summer and the soviets would still be under supplied and battle worn they would have given up or been destroyed
xMETALHEADx124 1 year ago
@xMETALHEADx124 That goes the other way too. If it wasn't for the Russians the Americans would have been slaughtered on D-Day...
Pentagon1311 11 months ago
@Pentagon1311 no not really lol the germans moved the majority of there heavy artillery tanks and infantry to the coast of Germany leaving France to a much smaller number of soldiers and lighter on armored and artillery support why did they do this?? the Americans and British made it look like they were getting ready to invade germany by sea so Hitler prepared for it big mistake he left german force in france much weaker then he should have and when the U.S airborne cut off supplys to
xMETALHEADx124 11 months ago
@xMETALHEADx124 You seem to forget the fact the Red Army destroyed 70% of germans fighting force... About 4 millions German soldiers died and 3 million more were taken as POWs. The Americans achieved a pyrrhic victory on D-day as they lost more soldiers than the Germans even though they outnumbered the Nazis in numbers, that tells you something. If Hitler wasn't stupid enough to invade Russia you and me would be speaking German and hailing his son on a daily basis.
Pentagon1311 11 months ago
@Pentagon1311 wrong the u.s army did not lose more men then the nazi's on d-day
u.s had 2,499 dead
nazi's had estimated 4,000 to 5,000 dead + 3,000 prisoners taken by allies
research before you say things and im not say that the Russia didn't help I'm saying they couldn't have won with out us and i do think that with out the red army the allies would have lost. The only battle the American's ever lost more men then the enemy in WW2 was iwo jima. like i said research before talk
xMETALHEADx124 11 months ago
@xMETALHEADx124 I don't know wikipedia said allies had approximately 10,000 soldiers while the Germans had 4,000 deaths so there you go.
Pentagon1311 11 months ago
@Pentagon1311 wiki? really your retarded just shutup lol and we are talking about the americans not the ALLIES that includes many different nations
xMETALHEADx124 11 months ago
@xMETALHEADx124 Well dumbass you can't just ignore the other countries as they consisted 50% of the force that invaded Normandy...
Pentagon1311 11 months ago
@Pentagon1311 well i was talking about americans only i never said anything about the allies as a whole + they didnt make up 50% of the invasion force there were more Americans there then any other allied nation and one more thing you dont know what your talking about you're reading Wikipedia... and one more thing the USSR lost a total of 8,668,000 fatalities just military Germans had 3,250,000 and that was through out the whole war. thats saying something huh?
xMETALHEADx124 11 months ago
@xMETALHEADx124 I'm not trying to compare who lost more because it's obvious that the Russians did, my point was that Russia would have not lost the war the if it wasn't for the Americans but it wasn't the other way around and i don't know why are you pulling these numbers out of your ass but yes other countries together did make up for 50% of the total force.
For example on D-Day only 73,000 soldiers of 156,000 were American... You can check other sites as this isn't only on wikipedia.
Pentagon1311 11 months ago
@Pentagon1311 with out the Allies russia would have been fucked they couldnt have fought the Japanese the Germans and Italians by them selves + the french army was complying to the nazi commanders and helping them fight.
xMETALHEADx124 11 months ago
@xMETALHEADx124 The Russians on the other hand, except for some few US supplies fought with little direct help from other countries throughout the war and managed to destroy the bulk of the german army. Only in Stalingrad one million germans lost their lives and an ENTIRE ARMY was wiped out...
Pentagon1311 11 months ago
@Pentagon1311 Americans did the same thing in Italy the destroyed not just the Italian army but all german forces there and im not pulling numbers out my ass btw they are from books i have writen by historians. and if the Americans and the other allied forces wouldnt have opened the other front there was a entire german army 2 times the size of what the russians had left they lost so many people they were leting people from the ages of 12-65 join their military and fight including women
xMETALHEADx124 11 months ago
@xMETALHEADx124 The italian army was a joke, they even lost to the greeks... That doesn't change the fact that the Russian army almost single-handedly destroyed most of the german army when they were at their best and after that the allies just picked out the pieces afterwards.
There is no way USA would have won in Europe if the best of the german army were not destroyed in the Eastern Front. The same cannot be said about the Russians, they were doing just fine before Normandy.
Pentagon1311 11 months ago
@Pentagon1311 im sorry your just so dumb.. the russia's wouldnt have won with out us and we wouldnt have won with out the russia's. i've been saying that i'll always say that. just please shutup and go back to middle school you have no clue what your talking about.
xMETALHEADx124 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@xMETALHEADx124 Yes and you're so smart, reading history books and so on but your username is metalhead. and my english is better even though i'm not even american so think again about who's supposed to go back to middle school...
"the russia's wouldnt have won with out us and we wouldnt have won with out the russia's."
Yes, i am now convinced! What a great argument...
Pentagon1311 11 months ago
@Pentagon1311
Yes, they won at Stalingrad but it was not until the Normandy invasion that the Russians could undertake a serious offensive capable of throwing the Germans out of the USSR.
hero1naka 11 months ago
@hero1naka Serious offensives were undertaken before the Normandy invasion as it happened in 1944...
Pentagon1311 11 months ago
@hero1naka the war on the eastern front was lost by dec 1941. whatever the allies might have done to help, russia would always have won in the end. their wernt enough trucks in the whole of europe to supply an army deep into russia. also, the fact germany was halted at moscow before germany's war effort was divided betweeen the two fronts shows they would have lost the war even if churchil had left them to it.
(i suppose the kursk tank battle is the best counter eg to your point).
abrelosojo 10 months ago
@abrelosojo ..and before Kursk there was the 'Battle of Britain, Battle of the Atantic , Invasion of Africa, Sicily and finally the allied bombing campaign of german homeland 1943-45' which cost germany 1/3 of it's total resources to combat ie; withdrawl of fighter units into the interior of nazi germany from the east front as well as other fronts. And don't forget that the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were 'BFF' allies prior to 1941' thru Ribbentropp Molotov Pact Both invaded Poland together.
fluffy1931 9 months ago
@fluffy1931 if you're saying those listed battles had an effect on the success of barbarossa i dont agree. The B of B weakened the German airforce but not enough to tip the balence on the eastern front, mainly because it was a land war. Rommel and Dönitz's wars were comparative side shows, and given little resources. Both had trouble gaining the attention of Hitler.
During 43 the western front came into play, and ye the biggest effect by far was the bombing, but Russia had won by then.
abrelosojo 9 months ago
@abrelosojo ...,dude, even before the Battle of Britain both Nazi Germany and Soviet Union were 'BFF" allies together thru the Ribbentropp Molotov Pact .Already they had invaded Poland together in 1939' and the Soviet Union was already cockblocking Finland. Russia was it's own worst enemy. Don't blame the west for the Soviet Unions position either strategically or tactically during ww2 way over rated.
fluffy1931 9 months ago
@fluffy1931 Nazi Germany hated the slavs( Russians). They weren't best friends the pact was simply made so that Germany wasn't fighting a two front war and it gave Russia time to build up an industry fit for war against a power like Germany. Germany respected Britain and the US and didn't expect them to declare war.
racewalker9999 9 months ago
@racewalker9999 keep sniffing glue dude. The combined invasion of Poland kicked off the start of ww2. The invasion began on 1 September 1939, one week after the signing of the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact, and ended on 6 October 1939 with Germany and the Soviet Union dividing and annexing the whole of Poland.
Your fantasy about what the US expected in the aftermath of invasion of Poland is without any fact or foundation. The Soviet Union since 1922' was helping Germany re-arm.
fluffy1931 9 months ago
@fluffy1931 I am not saying the German invasion of Poland did not start the war, what I am saying is Germany and the Soviet Union hated each other. Germany was capitalist, USSR was communist two ideas that are directly opposite of each other. Sure the USSR was helping re arm Germany but out of this deal they were getting high quality steel. The US gave loans to Germany. Does this mean they were also best friends?
racewalker9999 9 months ago
@hero1naka Hows about the battle at Kursk when the Russians defeated the Nazis. Well before Normandy.
kmwmlw 10 months ago
@kmwmlw Kursk was bleed out battle. Hence, twenty German divisions were move to Italy to stop the US/UK invasion. If US/UK had not invade Italy. Hilter would have move these twenty divisions to Kursk as previous planned.
MrJokker11 9 months ago
@xMETALHEADx124 Also, even though the allies outnumbered the germans 4 to 1 they still had more loses during the invasion of Normandy...
Pentagon1311 11 months ago
@Pentagon1311 the beaches of Normandy the german force's there had no choice but to surrender in that area. Hitler then tryed to send more troops over to stop them but Patton's 3rd army cut them off leaving the u.s army to basically cut through german forces in france who had no support
xMETALHEADx124 11 months ago
@Pentagon1311 you seem to have a very good understanding of ww2 :).
abrelosojo 9 months ago
@xMETALHEADx124 In a dream.
PatriotSubversive 11 months ago
@xMETALHEADx124 That is not true. Wehrmacht was continuously pushed back on the eastern front after the battle at Kursk in July 43. That was 11 months before D-day. The red army would have defeted Germany without a front in France. Please also read up on the Bagration Read army offensive in the summer of 44.
Kahavia 9 months ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kahavia You are correct that 75% of German ground forces were destroyed on the eastern front. But what about the the german air force and navy? The US and UK destroyed more then 80% of both of them. You can look up the numbers yourself. Also the Germans were getting bombed for 3 years by the US and UK. Germany was in rubble by the end of 1944. and where did the Russians get their uniforms, food, steel, fuel and other raw materials? The US and UK.
moonshot926 3 months ago
@Kahavia Than why did Stalin beg for a second front to be opened day after day?? And dont tell me "to save red army lives." :)
gettincrazywithit 3 weeks ago
@xMETALHEADx124 i don't know what history you know,but the Soviet Union pushed back the nazis way quicker(from 1943 until the landing from Normandy,the Red Army advanced from the stepes of Caucaz nearly to the german-polish border) than the western Allies did.I know you are proud of being american and all that,but you cannot deny the historical proof.
P.S.:i'm not russian,but the fact is a fact.
Antimanele104 8 months ago
@Antimanele104 your relies that the d-day landings was june 6 1944. the allies on the western front at the beginning of ww2 1941 -1943 had pushed the axis out of africa and italy had been taken out of the war. then in 1944 to 1945 pushed them back to germany then decided to wait 2 months so the red army could take berlin and get revenge for Stalingrad right? and if you time what the allies did starting at june 6 1944 to 1945 they did the same amount of work with less casualties and faster
xMETALHEADx124 8 months ago
@Antimanele104 Your "Facts" are flawed. Yes the Russians pushed the Nazi's out. However after Stalingrad and the loss of 6th Army, the remaining German forces were ill supplied, a majority were 2nd line soldiers. With no mobility options, had no means to counter or repel the Russian attacks and were completely out gunned. The top German Infantry were in the West for the Invasion and for the Ardennes offensive.
cwilliams3567 6 months ago
@xMETALHEADx124 Well I am not so sure about that. The soviets repelled the German invasion at Stalingrad without the help of their allies. To be more specific, the Americans and the British were purposely delaying their aid. After that, whether or not Soviets would fall is open for discussion.
SuperEpicWin 5 months ago
Germany spearheaded with gas guzzlers, that had poor power to weight ratio, they might have gotten further with smaller medium tanks.
Sniper77799 1 year ago
German production was really impressive given the incredible amounts of bombs dropped on industrial centers by the allies.
gjfwang 1 year ago 8
thanks to the chekz
lesterclaypool1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
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
2:49 good hair for age
TheSteffen1223 2 years ago
0:24 : greatest landbattle ever fought by american troops in the 20st century - for Germany it´s not in the top10, may be top100 - and so are the losses.
eus478 2 years ago 3
the germans should have sent the troops used for the battle of the bulge and sent them to the eastern front this obviously wouldnt have won the war but maybe prolonged it for another year or so
xFINALBANDITx 2 years ago
Like I posted in a related topic on the Battle of the Bulge in YouTube, the Ardennes Offensive wouldve been successful, if the Germans didnt have to forage for Fuel for their Panzers, which was a Logistical Nightmare for them.
EvilFingers 2 years ago
It would have helped if they had fuel, but they still wouldnt have won. They simply didnt have enough men to put into the attack. Had they gone farther, they probably would have been cut off.
waldaddy2010 2 years ago
Actually, they did have enough men for the drive to Antwerp, but like I said Fuel was their #1 problem and also they had to take small windy roads and hills and those eat alot of Gas and Time, especially when they used the wrong Panzer (Tiger II) for such an Offensive.
Besides Logistics, there were other problems that led to a Failed Offensive, such as the Massarce of Unarmed US Soldeirs by the SS and the Failed Attempt to place US Speaking German Troops behind US Lines were all captured.
EvilFingers 2 years ago
They did have enough men to make it to Antwerp, but not enough to gaurd their flanks. Had they made it to Antwerp, The Third Army to the south and the First and ninth Armies to the North would have broken through their lines and cut off the advance. As an army advances in a manner like what happened in the Bulge, men need to be left behind to gaurd the flanks.
waldaddy2010 2 years ago 2
Their Flanks wouldve been stable. if the capture of Bastogne had fallen as planned, thus this would free up several Divisions and Battlions and place them where they are needed the most...that is what the Germans wanted when Bastogne was surrouinded, but as Fate has it, Fate was against the Germans.
EvilFingers 2 years ago
this battle was totally dependent on supply. and as you said if the fuel line had been 100% german's would have probably won and the war would have gone on.
But like everything in there are alot if's if the panzers been deployed during d-day like rommel had planned then the d-day landings would have been a slaughter.
xwingclass 2 years ago
@xwingclass Nonsense - the Germans could not even keep pace with Russian production, which was half of American production (if that), other than in tanks. They had essentially no air forces left. Even if they had an endless supply of gas, the first clear day would have brought on them a complete rain of ruin. This attack, like most German attacks, was part of an idiotic strategy hatched by a vain corporal. The Germans are the Buffalo Bills of military strategy.
antimatterXXXIII 2 years ago
That's true--Hans von Luck was waiting with a whole Panzer division, ready to attack on June 6. But he never got permission to attack.
galoon 1 year ago
it is the wrong approach to look for a point in this offensive in military terms, rather it is part of the ultimate betrayal of hitler against the german people. at the time the only thing on the minds of most germans was to get conquered by the western allies, not the soviets. hitler had accepted deep down that the 'master race' had failed (him), he said the stronger eastern race prevailed, so it was theirs to win the ultimate prize in the giant struggle for world domination among the races
ziggydiggy84 2 years ago
TBH, an actual "Watch on the Rhine" would have been the better strategy, holding the Allies off as best they could, with armored and motorised reserves used to brunt any spec ops or airborne attempts to get by. The offensive was essentially useless and self-defeating.
GoodwoodAlpha 2 years ago 2
Best military during WW2 Undoubtbly the german Werchtmacht.
fixdeluxe1 2 years ago 4
no doubt, even by today's standards I bet they would be one of the best. Their tactical ability was amazing
Cryptopsy666 2 years ago 2
atleast you people had soldiers while my country was occupied by japanese forces...we could only rely on british soldiers..but they were wrong and underestimate the japanese..
more than 3 year my country was ruled under japanese
jalalmizuno 2 years ago
which country is that ?
cronos3586 2 years ago
Guy look at the map at 1:27 !! the map is wrong !! Germany looked diffrent !! Parts of east Brandenburg and east prussia are missing this is a modern germany map and not one from the past!!
Lolerdan 2 years ago 3
yes but the japs are second im jewish
orenr100 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
my grandmas entire family was wiped out by the NAZI BITCHES im jewish
orenr100 2 years ago
Only thing Hitler did wrong was not killing 6 more million JEWS it would be a better world today an we would'nt have a nergo president
LONEWOLF3288 2 years ago 7
Spoken like a true xenophobe....well done that man/boy/child....well done. Read more instead of watching films. Read about the terror caused by the Nazi secret Police. Things like: "You will join the army or all your family will be sent to a concentration camp including your pet rabbit! Seriously.......well apart from the rabbit bit.
Anglashock 2 years ago
German troops were regarded as some of the best trained soldiers of WWII. Read your history books. Not all Germans were members of the Nazi party.
Anglashock 2 years ago 7
Yep!! Remember Volksgranadiers had no connection with the party they were just local people fighting for their country! They werent Nazis they were Hitlers slaves like the children! If you disagree blame Nosterdamos not me!
mihaelmartinovic 2 years ago
tru
SS not all were death squads
i respect the incredible esteem and discipline the SS displayed.
and on top of that their uniforms and their excellent leaders just added to that high trained elite unit status
123456Nagasaki 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
to say that you're stooping to their levels...
iamthe1337est 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
we killed 50 k in 24h thats record .9
pissmeister 2 years ago
3 milions soviet troops marching down from the east. over 1 million allied troops coming up from the west. the fact that it took 2 years for complete surrender of Germany proved the resilience and resoursefulness of Germanic tribes.
phadil 2 years ago 3
the german army (i cant spell it, the whermacht i think) where masterminds
they truly where a great army
lakersrdabest 2 years ago 3
la battaglia delle Ardenne fu un errore strategico e tattico di capitale importanza. chi mi sa dire il perchè? avanti geni!
sallustiocatilina 2 years ago
1:04 did that guy get shot at?
DanteSitwell 2 years ago
yes but the German machine gunner failed epically
camokid99 2 years ago
No, man, that was an underwater fart. Of course he was shot at! That is what they call war.
ElephantRage 2 years ago
are you not forgeting the dodge and studebaker truks they got. they where vital fore USSRs mobility.transporting troops and suplies to the front lines.
bliree 3 years ago 11
The US sent thousands of trucks to the Soviets and hardly a word of thanks from Uncle Joe.
The British arctic convoys also supplied them and we lost many ships and men.
gwilymrj 2 years ago 20
What do you expect.... It was Stalin.
Mahknz 2 years ago
Quite, Mahknz, gratitude was not in his nature.
gwilymrj 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
if anyone should be thanking anyone its US and Britain. without russia the british and US would be speaking german now. but i hear what you saying no doubt US and british equipment helped the russians particularly moving large russian armies but at the end of the day the russians held down over 150 german divisions.
msduicp 2 years ago
True the Eastern Front had a completely different scale.
Hell the 6th Army alone, one army out of several armies in one Army Group, out of 3 Army Groups, on the Eastern Front numbered already 250,000 soldiers.
HingerlAlois 2 years ago
85-90% of German losses were to the Russians... Yeah that kind of proves who took the brunt of the war...
Nice to see someone who knows their facts.
DomWeasel 2 years ago
your numbers are a little off LOL
lesterclaypool1 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Nope, that's pretty close. I think the best estimate is 80% of German losses attributable to the Soviets.
galoon 1 year ago
that was only on the eastern front , but in Europe , Africa ,mediterranean and the bombing of germany ,,, none of these losses had to do with Russia
lesterclaypool1 1 year ago 9
That's right.
galoon 1 year ago 2
Yes that is true that the Russians were the ones who took the brunt of Germany, but Germany wasn't the only Axis power now were they?
jayers2 2 years ago 4
Yes and as I have said countless times in many different youtube WW2 forums;
Russians defeat Germany
Americans defeat Japan
Italy taken between Britain and America
British largely providing vital support role throughout war.
DomWeasel 2 years ago 7
@gwilymrj
We gave em uniforms also.
DamnHippies1 1 year ago
@gwilymrj uncle sam*....
xMETALHEADx124 1 year ago
@gwilymrj the ruskkies were TO BUSY SAVING THE WORLD FROM NAZISM while the americans were to busy big macs to care
sprucepantherkmt 1 year ago
@sprucepantherkmt the nazis and japs would've defeated russia if america didnt enter the war
bikepeddlar6 1 year ago
@bikepeddlar6 ur a moron
sprucepantherkmt 1 year ago
@bikepeddlar6 ur a moron
sprucepantherkmt 1 year ago
@sprucepantherkmt no you are. if we didn't enter the war the germans could have focused all there efforts on the eastern front. and the japanese would invaded russia from the other side.
bikepeddlar6 1 year ago
@gwilymrj They still did 90% of the fighting
Wesh67300 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You're right DuthPetriot! 80% of the German military strength was on the russian front. Yes the american lend-lease was helpful for the USSR but think of it. The USSR built over 100 000 tanks during WW2. How important were a few outdated good for nothing grant tanks then? The only thing helpful the USA gave the USSR was food and aircraft.
jaruzelska23 3 years ago
it was much much more than food and aircraft
i don't feel like listing all of it but the amount of supplies the US gave to USSR was astounding.
OlderG0ds 2 years ago 11
And trucks, half-tracks, and everything else the Russians needed to survive until they could get the war going their way. 100,000 tanks aren't very useful if there's no food.
galoon 1 year ago 14
This comment has received too many negative votes show
5% of defeating the nazis is british work, 15 % is american work and over 80% is russain work ....
DutchPetriot 3 years ago
There were more than just British and Americans fighting against Germany and still the other nations that made supplies for the Allies as well. The US, through the Lend Lease Act, supplied the Soviets with weapons, tanks, supplies, etc. for the fight against Germany so you cannot say that Americans did 15% as well as Britain when it was fighting Nazi Germany on the skies and on the ground in North Africa when France fell to Germany.
TheAmericanPageant 3 years ago 9
it would be better to assume that the american contribution to defeating the nazis was at least 50% because the americans propped up Stalins regime with foodstuffs and all sorts raw materials and vehicles in vast quantities. The Soviet Union would have collapsed without american aid.
poussecafe3 3 years ago 11
I think it's more 60/40
without the second front opening up the war in europe could have dragged on for many more years.
ProjectCC 3 years ago 8
Just look at how many German divisions and aircraft were where deployed where each year 1941- 1945, gives a fairly good hint of who the Germans at least thought the worst threat.
It is tiring to meet these arguments all over the net, not just here, various Nationalists pounding their chests claiming they beat the Germans, and stupid Neo-Nazis spouting their drivel...
I am Danish, we did absolutely nothing TBH, and that is how we survived as an independant nation, so it worked.
Nybyggeren 3 years ago
what do you mean with TBH? anyway your country wasnt independent in the second world war and your country didnt fought for its independents
DutchPetriot 3 years ago 2
Nybyggeren: Denmark survived as a independent nation only because other peoples won it back for you. It would be polite if you could give respect to them for it.
Finn001abd 3 years ago 9
You're forgetting British exhaustion. They were alone from June 1940 until mid-December 1941.
Belgium, Frasnce and a neutral Holland had not stopped, barely depleted the Nazi might.
parabat7 3 years ago
False. Britain was alone until spring of 41 when Yugoslavia and Greece joined in. After that, they were alone for a short time, but was relieved when the Germans attacked Russia on June 22 1941.
justjustinme 2 years ago
Fantastic video! I loved it. Thanks for posting. My name is Tim, and I have just published a book all about the huge German buildup just prior to the launching of this massive offensive operation. The title of my book is: WACHT AM RHEIN. You can purchase it through Amazon or Barnes and Noble through their online website. Or, you can also purchase it through my publisher, Xlibris.
SWALE1984 3 years ago
Oh and also had they deployed more troops on the west front it would of meant the Russians would of got to Berlin even faster.
Either way Germany was screwed. They simply could not handle all that was thrown at them. Their industry was being bombed night and day, and were facing multiple enemies alone.
Were as the US in WW2 could handle being on more then one front easily. Industry was never damaged, we had allies helping us. Not "allies" a few thousand miles away from us. Among other things.
mecher3k 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
America/Allies accounted for just 5% of the total German Casualties. 85% goes to the Russians.
The Germans held off the Allies that long with only 10% of their force against the entire Allied invasion.
steellegioncpt 3 years ago