thats true, if france had been more aggresive and launch an assult on germany when they invaded Poland ww2 would have been stopt before it had the chance to begin
Hitlers NO RETREAT orders was the biggest mistake, Stalin Learned it after first having done the same as hitler.
In my opion another great failure of the germans was their Airpower, Goering was not the Right commander also they lacked a heavybomber in large enough numbers to kill Britain . Due to their tactic of blitzkrieg their airforce was not fit to fight an airbatle like that over england, German airforce was setup as infantrysupport, not strategig bombing in large scale.
I've spent 35+ years studying WW2 and key points that keeps returning are; Germany had better soldiers. Germany had better weapons (except for Naval). Germany had better tactics that worked well in the "reality" of war in the field. German people were almost single minded supporters of Hitler and the party. Germans had superior propaganda and made brilliant use of the media and the culture of the time.
All said, Germany was superior almost across the board. Why wasn't that enough to win??
Cont- Germany, being superior in equipment, training and tactics still missed some key points. Most of the world feared them which bonded the Allies. Germans had far less natural resources and were grossly outnumbered in personnel AND skilled laborers. Germany was fighting a "World War" and didn't have a substantial surface naval fleet. Germans couldn't control the Airspace. Germany's enemies had moral superiority uniting them. Germans were VASTLY deficient in numbers, thus dooming them.
Vell the failure of germany, was hitler! demanding again and again that the army should fight to the last man slowly killed the might of the german army, also Hitler did not listen to the commanders and constantly changed their strategies. Also The Italian army and all its failures probaly used up german men and material needed elsewhere to secure victories. All in All Hitler actually lost the war for germany , In my opion anyway.
@randy109 Because all the superiority faded as the war went on. Allied air forces overwhelmed the Luftwaffe. Other armies copied German tactics. Allied nations became united against Germany. And there were more soldiers and more industrial potential on the other side of the table. And the damn fool declared war on the US when it wasn't necessary. As someone has pointed out already the Japanese had not attacked the Russians
Yeah, You count on Hitler to keep his word. He was willing to enslave the Poles & Russians, kill the Jews who were all white. What do you think he would have done to blacks then?
In 1914, in the Ardennes, the French attacked the Germans - while they should have done better by using the Ardennes defensively. The 4th French army fell back only because it became outflanked, as the German main attack came from the North. Yet the German army suffered heavy losses there.
For the rest, you are right. It's a typical case of success based on "chosing the difficult path, where the enemy does not expect you".
@Fridomfry The Maginot Line was considered a failure by many after the warm when in fact it wasn't. It held up well in the areas it was located, but even the strongest fortress is useless if you leave the back door open
im black but i just like what he stand for i no he didnt care to much about my people but i was reading something about him how he wanted us to have our indenpence from the u.s but i think he was lieing but he would have won if he didnt attack the ussr
That 'no contest" cost the Germans 101,000 battle casualties invading France and the Low Countries. The French weren't throwing last weeks croissants at the oncoming panzers, sport. >;D
Wikipedia is not accepted as a valid source for citation at the university level. There is a considerable body of research far more up to date than you're citing, including multiple accounts of deliberate concealment of casualties by the German Heer during the campaign in Holland. Calling someone names BTW is also not a valid way to present an argument. It is however a perfect way of exposing your own doubts about your argument, and uncertainty of your own sources of information.
I have provided you with sources which are verifiable
2)this theory that german figs cannot be accepted at facevalue is rubbish,there is no reason to suppose that the germans falsify records anymore than the british would,this is simply used as an excuse to justify allied incompetence in command and combat
One conceals casualties for two main purposes: (1) deny your enemy knowledge of your losses, (2) maintaining morale amongst your own forces and the homefront. Yes, your sources are accessible: that you are not a trained researcher or historian, is also clearly evident by your childish need to resort to insults.
its funny: Niall Ferguson in his book "Pity of War" (another book to reference ww2 casualty analysis,in fact probably the best since the analysis is based on post war demographic analysis)
Yes, and (1) the allied nations could hardly be called *prepared* for war in 1939, (2) Poland was hardly a match for the German Heer followed by the Red Army crashing into their rear, (3) France and Britain were still behind in rearmament in 1940, (4) the US was not prepared for war in 1941, (5) the USSR was taken by surprise, and losses were exacerbated by Stalin's purges of the officer corps and other factors of doctrine and equipment. Need I go on?
the british and americans even in ww1 have gone on and on about how germans "conceal" figures and how even today most brits and americans think that it is simply a matter of opinion on how data is interprated even though fairly exact figs are available since the end of the war,and anyone actually looks at the data is attacked for being a "revisionist"
like it is said" Truth is bitter,illusions are comforting"
The Germans officially acknowledged one (1) casualty during a particular battle in Holland; the actual losses were considerably higher. Again, there are reasons to conceal your losses from your enemy; it's called good tactics.
since the figures i am quoting are from post war analysis from the west german archives the issue you mention is irrelevant,there is no reason for the germans to hide the actual figures from themselves,that is not "tactics" that is stupidity.
There is a reason for the Nazi leadership at the time to conceal their losses from the German *homefront:* to ensure that enthusiasm for the war does not weaken. That the German brass understood their own losses is not the point; their intent was to keep the British and French in June 1940 from realizing just how exhausted they were, to prevent the Allies from continuing to resist.
Hitler sold his soul to the devil. He regarded *ANYONE* who was not a "pure blood Aryan" as *subhuman* ('untermenschen"). Had Hitler been allowed his darkest desires, *everyone* who wasn't a "pure blood Aryan" would have followed the Jews, Romani (Gypsies), gays, "social undesirables," etc. into the ovens of Auschwitz. I had family serving in that war BTW, and have studied it since childhood. I am also half of an inter-racial marriage. I know this music down to the last note.
Hitler was hardly the example of the Aryan superman he worshipped. Germans and especially Austrians have the blood of every army or tribe that marched through there for 2000 years.
the whole aryan concept was such a joke, but they believed that the original Aryans came from Tibet. There was a movie, "7 Years in Tibet" that concerned the Nazi expedition to TIbet that got stranded there during the war.
And I think you'll be amused to learn that the one time that Adolf visited Paris, he and some of his officers were standing in front of the Eiffel Tower. I'm sure you've seen the pictures. Some French men had disabled the elevators before they left.
Upon being told he would have to climb the stairs in the famous Eiffel Tower, Adolf said it was too much trouble and he stayed on the ground.
What a wimp.
I learned that from a children's book on Gustave Eiffel.
@asku23 The Germans were better soldiers, and had better gear & training! As well as for the last 2.5 years of the war,duing the greatest battles, she was fighting on the defense. So I am not surprised at the loss ratios, especially versus the Soviets who threw their people & soldiers away like cattle
Cheese eating surrender monkeys
181stTIE 2 weeks ago
thanks
rawdawg15 2 months ago
So many people here need to read a real history book, coloring books and crayons do not count.
French4thcommando 4 months ago
The picture at 05:27 is not Walter von Brauchitsch but Ewald von Kleist
lucius1976 8 months ago
ther germans had too many military genius in the High Command at that time. too much brain power compared with french and british.
Rico8458 11 months ago
The Rules of French Warfare:
1) Can't be led by a Frenchmen
2) Americans do all the fighting (DeGualle syndrome)
3) When 1 and 2 fail find the nearest German and surrender
gopconservative78 1 year ago 2
@gopconservative78
The Rules of American Warfare:
1. Wait until the other war parties exhaust themselves out. If that has happend
2. Join the war and fight the enemy. If you encounter to much resistance then
3. Dig in and call in the air force
lucius1976 8 months ago
@gopconservative78
And finally 4. after the war:
Write the history books in such way that you rescued all other and did all the important fighting.
lucius1976 8 months ago
the fall of france is due to weak commanders. a strong commander can win any war.
NoXAdmiral 1 year ago
France would have been a formidable foe if it was not led by a bunch of incompetent imbeciles.
Cytacon 1 year ago
@Cytacon
thats true, if france had been more aggresive and launch an assult on germany when they invaded Poland ww2 would have been stopt before it had the chance to begin
Narjoso 1 year ago
too many panzers and not enough bombers and fighters
Rico8458 2 years ago
Hitlers NO RETREAT orders was the biggest mistake, Stalin Learned it after first having done the same as hitler.
In my opion another great failure of the germans was their Airpower, Goering was not the Right commander also they lacked a heavybomber in large enough numbers to kill Britain . Due to their tactic of blitzkrieg their airforce was not fit to fight an airbatle like that over england, German airforce was setup as infantrysupport, not strategig bombing in large scale.
peanutpumpgun 2 years ago
no, there defeat, is having an ally that does NOT attack the damn oil fields and mines of Siberia, Japan
hitlerjorge 2 years ago 3
I've spent 35+ years studying WW2 and key points that keeps returning are; Germany had better soldiers. Germany had better weapons (except for Naval). Germany had better tactics that worked well in the "reality" of war in the field. German people were almost single minded supporters of Hitler and the party. Germans had superior propaganda and made brilliant use of the media and the culture of the time.
All said, Germany was superior almost across the board. Why wasn't that enough to win??
randy109 2 years ago
Cont- Germany, being superior in equipment, training and tactics still missed some key points. Most of the world feared them which bonded the Allies. Germans had far less natural resources and were grossly outnumbered in personnel AND skilled laborers. Germany was fighting a "World War" and didn't have a substantial surface naval fleet. Germans couldn't control the Airspace. Germany's enemies had moral superiority uniting them. Germans were VASTLY deficient in numbers, thus dooming them.
randy109 2 years ago
Vell the failure of germany, was hitler! demanding again and again that the army should fight to the last man slowly killed the might of the german army, also Hitler did not listen to the commanders and constantly changed their strategies. Also The Italian army and all its failures probaly used up german men and material needed elsewhere to secure victories. All in All Hitler actually lost the war for germany , In my opion anyway.
peanutpumpgun 2 years ago
@randy109 Because all the superiority faded as the war went on. Allied air forces overwhelmed the Luftwaffe. Other armies copied German tactics. Allied nations became united against Germany. And there were more soldiers and more industrial potential on the other side of the table. And the damn fool declared war on the US when it wasn't necessary. As someone has pointed out already the Japanese had not attacked the Russians
rangerbobcat 1 year ago
Supposedly the Aryans have blond hair and blue eyes, but those are both recessive traits.
I would hardly say those are the qualities of some so called master race.
AppleSouffle 2 years ago
In 1914, the Ardennes were impassible, so the French did little there and the Germans attacked successfully
In 1940, the Ardennes were still impassible, so the French did little there and the Germans attacked VERY successfully
In 1944, the Ardennes were still completely impassible, so the US did little there and the Germans attacked and were almost successful.
Funny how the rugged, impassible Ardennes seems to be more like a highway
jakefree25 2 years ago
ok but i seen something how they were say he want us to have our own land but after all we been thougt it could be true
communipaw2009 2 years ago
Yeah, You count on Hitler to keep his word. He was willing to enslave the Poles & Russians, kill the Jews who were all white. What do you think he would have done to blacks then?
jakefree25 2 years ago
good point after all it seems like everybody hate us and jews thats why we are best friends
communipaw2009 2 years ago
In 1914, in the Ardennes, the French attacked the Germans - while they should have done better by using the Ardennes defensively. The 4th French army fell back only because it became outflanked, as the German main attack came from the North. Yet the German army suffered heavy losses there.
For the rest, you are right. It's a typical case of success based on "chosing the difficult path, where the enemy does not expect you".
Fridomfry 2 years ago
@Fridomfry The Maginot Line was considered a failure by many after the warm when in fact it wasn't. It held up well in the areas it was located, but even the strongest fortress is useless if you leave the back door open
peri2502 2 years ago
im black but i just like what he stand for i no he didnt care to much about my people but i was reading something about him how he wanted us to have our indenpence from the u.s but i think he was lieing but he would have won if he didnt attack the ussr
communipaw2009 2 years ago
He would have had blacks are permanent slaves or in zoos, he thought the blacks were subhuman.
jakefree25 2 years ago
r u mental? the germans thrashed the BEF in less than 6 weeks!
britain only "won" in 1945 by tagging along on our backs americans
asku23 3 years ago
Well Britain held out for 5 years of german bombings and warfare if you are british be proud of that if you are american respect that
Abridgedfan134 2 years ago 2
And if you are Irish, be displeased! Erin Go Bragh!
mazarini 2 years ago
Yeah, the Irish were rooting for Hitler, Erin Go Get Drunk
jakefree25 2 years ago
no way Germany owned the other two no contest
Lurtz0886 3 years ago
That 'no contest" cost the Germans 101,000 battle casualties invading France and the Low Countries. The French weren't throwing last weeks croissants at the oncoming panzers, sport. >;D
Kagetora2010 3 years ago
they were throwing the tactics of World War I at them though
Lurtz0886 3 years ago
Yes, they were for the most part "late by a war, by an army, and by an idea." That said, tactics do not equal courage.
Kagetora2010 2 years ago
in your dreams:
germany: 27000dead+18000missing
france=95000dead+22000missing
BEF: 11000
FOOL
asku23 3 years ago
Sources? Or are ad hominems all you have to offer?
Kagetora2010 3 years ago
a simple search in wikipedia will get you the "sources" idiot
Sources:
Lidell hart:German generals talk
John mosier: the blitzkrieg krieg
Max hastings: D-day(shows the figs in the 2nd chapter)
go read a book before parading your ignorance
asku23 3 years ago
Wikipedia is not accepted as a valid source for citation at the university level. There is a considerable body of research far more up to date than you're citing, including multiple accounts of deliberate concealment of casualties by the German Heer during the campaign in Holland. Calling someone names BTW is also not a valid way to present an argument. It is however a perfect way of exposing your own doubts about your argument, and uncertainty of your own sources of information.
Kagetora2010 3 years ago 8
Mr Moron:
I have provided you with sources which are verifiable
2)this theory that german figs cannot be accepted at facevalue is rubbish,there is no reason to suppose that the germans falsify records anymore than the british would,this is simply used as an excuse to justify allied incompetence in command and combat
asku23 3 years ago
One conceals casualties for two main purposes: (1) deny your enemy knowledge of your losses, (2) maintaining morale amongst your own forces and the homefront. Yes, your sources are accessible: that you are not a trained researcher or historian, is also clearly evident by your childish need to resort to insults.
Kagetora2010 3 years ago
its funny: Niall Ferguson in his book "Pity of War" (another book to reference ww2 casualty analysis,in fact probably the best since the analysis is based on post war demographic analysis)
asku23 3 years ago
FACT:
almost 3 allied soldiers died for every german in ww2
Soviets: 10.6 milllon
UK: 217000(only against germany)
USA:188000(Germany)
France,Poland=378000
Rst: includes yugoslav,belgian,norway and whoever else=212000
Grand total = 11.7 million
Germany:5.3 million(includes 2 million unconfirmed missing)
some "victory"
asku23 3 years ago
Yes, and (1) the allied nations could hardly be called *prepared* for war in 1939, (2) Poland was hardly a match for the German Heer followed by the Red Army crashing into their rear, (3) France and Britain were still behind in rearmament in 1940, (4) the US was not prepared for war in 1941, (5) the USSR was taken by surprise, and losses were exacerbated by Stalin's purges of the officer corps and other factors of doctrine and equipment. Need I go on?
Kagetora2010 3 years ago
makes this exact statement about what you say:
the british and americans even in ww1 have gone on and on about how germans "conceal" figures and how even today most brits and americans think that it is simply a matter of opinion on how data is interprated even though fairly exact figs are available since the end of the war,and anyone actually looks at the data is attacked for being a "revisionist"
like it is said" Truth is bitter,illusions are comforting"
asku23 3 years ago
The Germans officially acknowledged one (1) casualty during a particular battle in Holland; the actual losses were considerably higher. Again, there are reasons to conceal your losses from your enemy; it's called good tactics.
Kagetora2010 3 years ago
since the figures i am quoting are from post war analysis from the west german archives the issue you mention is irrelevant,there is no reason for the germans to hide the actual figures from themselves,that is not "tactics" that is stupidity.
asku23 3 years ago
There is a reason for the Nazi leadership at the time to conceal their losses from the German *homefront:* to ensure that enthusiasm for the war does not weaken. That the German brass understood their own losses is not the point; their intent was to keep the British and French in June 1940 from realizing just how exhausted they were, to prevent the Allies from continuing to resist.
Kagetora2010 3 years ago
dont get me wrong i love jews to i love all humans after all we are all gods gift and im black but hitler was god child to
communipaw2009 2 years ago
Hitler sold his soul to the devil. He regarded *ANYONE* who was not a "pure blood Aryan" as *subhuman* ('untermenschen"). Had Hitler been allowed his darkest desires, *everyone* who wasn't a "pure blood Aryan" would have followed the Jews, Romani (Gypsies), gays, "social undesirables," etc. into the ovens of Auschwitz. I had family serving in that war BTW, and have studied it since childhood. I am also half of an inter-racial marriage. I know this music down to the last note.
Kagetora2010 2 years ago
Hitler was hardly the example of the Aryan superman he worshipped. Germans and especially Austrians have the blood of every army or tribe that marched through there for 2000 years.
jakefree25 2 years ago
That and the Iranians are the real Aryans. :p
dmkavidelly 2 years ago
the whole aryan concept was such a joke, but they believed that the original Aryans came from Tibet. There was a movie, "7 Years in Tibet" that concerned the Nazi expedition to TIbet that got stranded there during the war.
jakefree25 2 years ago
I agree, you made a great point.
And I think you'll be amused to learn that the one time that Adolf visited Paris, he and some of his officers were standing in front of the Eiffel Tower. I'm sure you've seen the pictures. Some French men had disabled the elevators before they left.
Upon being told he would have to climb the stairs in the famous Eiffel Tower, Adolf said it was too much trouble and he stayed on the ground.
What a wimp.
I learned that from a children's book on Gustave Eiffel.
AppleSouffle 2 years ago
@asku23 The Germans were better soldiers, and had better gear & training! As well as for the last 2.5 years of the war,duing the greatest battles, she was fighting on the defense. So I am not surprised at the loss ratios, especially versus the Soviets who threw their people & soldiers away like cattle
jakefree25 2 years ago