omg i never head so many mistakes in single documatry in 5 min ... as most u can watch it for fun but any facts or date presented iin this movie i sugest keeping for yourself untill proven
Xaxa france gay fag nation fel in 10 days under hitler hah loosers suckups of the USA cant atack any 1 on ground but use cruse misciles on poor libya people. once a fag always a fag , most gay nation ever. only thing good u have is woman for sex nothing else ur wasting air of our planet scrubs.
@MilosKole and I suppose you're country would have lasted longer against an all out attack by one of the strongest military's in the world? and ya the US is using missiles to destroy airbases in Libya so that their insane leader can't make air strikes against rebels and civilian locations. Learn what you're talking about before you start saying shit you inept fuck.
@MilosKole omg, u are so incult and dumb..oki, i will be fine and learn u something at your little gay brain....in 1806 the french army were in Berlin after 19 days of fight....interresting no?
@MilosKole Wow, little pig boy apparently believes america didn't help anyone... How about France, Britain and even Russia's early majority of tanks? What about the bombings? What about the 4.5 million Russian/German women raped by Russian pigs (who truly were 'scum')? What about the fact that the Panzer III was absolutely outclassed by most tanks in France? You're a very sad individual.
@Scrinoverlord there were only ~30,000 dead, most of the wounded had probably returned... to be killed elsewhere. In return to these losses, the Reich got all the economic potential of France and the small countries. This still didn't help, but regardless, the element of surprise makes wonders, look at the 6 day war between Israel and Arabs..
How could the British and French command miss this Ardennes thing? My explanation: cowardly incompetent fat cats. Someone should have purged their ranks.
@silver610310 You know, up until this point I thought you were an intelligible person, but calling the British and French high command "cowardly, incompetent fat cats" is ignorant to a whole new level. I think you missed a little event called World War I, where the Allies, particularly the French, suffered horribly. As a result they were much less prepared to fight a war than the Nazis.
@Scrinoverlord Being less prepared is exactly their fault. In WW1 Germany was the defeated side, and, as I hope you know, was specifically forbidden to "prepare". That French and British suffered in WW1 makes it even more puzzling how could they allow 1940 to happen. In not incompetence, then what - treason?
@silver610310 The British and French were well-prepared in 1940 - to fight WW1 again. One could argue that the defeat suffered by Germany in 1919 actually provided an advantage, as it swept away the old system and ideas just in time for new minds to exploit to full advantage the incredible technological advances of the era.
@silver610310 The Ardennes thing was really just an extension of the lack of understanding the Allies had about armor. The Ardennes had only a few narrow roads running through it, and most military thinkers considered them far too small to move substantial numbers of troops through in anything like a short period. The Germans, having separated armor from infantry, realized it could be done. Still, it took nothing short of a logistical miracle and tremendous luck to pull it off.
@nikamungus I agree 100%. Central Powers had NO chance.
One other reason people cite for Germany's defeat is "russian winter". That is very right. They only need to add "spring", "fall" and "summer".
In my opinion, the disaster in France had many factors, but the cowardliness of the British and French command and incompetence of officers was one of the crucial reasons. The equipment and soldiers were fine.
I would much rather be an anonymous infantryman than ride around in French or American tanks that basically had "Target" painted in big letters all over them. Germans better understood armored warfare than the US did, even after having our butts kicked by Panzers a few times. We finally "got it" in about mid '44 but the French were defeated before they got a chance to learn anything about deploying armor.
I would say the German soldiers were very disciplined, but certainly not superior.
The Americans had General Patton, who was superb when it came to strategy.
Plus near the end of the war, the Americans had better technology. They had the Firefly tank that knocked out Tiger tanks, a small tank called the Wolverine that could reach 60 mph.
At sea, they had the Hedgehog, which surrounded a U-boat with an oval of bombs and imploded the hull.
That superior attitude helped lead to their downfall.
Yet the optical system used by the British and Americans were blatantly inferior to that of German tanks. German infantry tactics on the squad level revolved around the machine gun. The rifleman was there to support the machine gun. It proved superior to other armies. The American commanders incorrectly believed the machine gun was there to support the rifleman. They also incorrectly believed the tank destroyers were supposed to fight tanks.
@thatkidinthegreenhat I agree, there were many elements of tactics that Germans understood better. One of this was their ability to switch to tactical defense in a strategic offensive, which worked well against constant russian counterattacks. These tactical advantages didn't help to alleviate the strategic failures of german command in the long run, but... make a great example. I never heard about " rifleman was there to support the machine gun". learned something. Thank you!!
Yes the German ideas as far as infantry were the rifleman supports the machine gun. They knew that the machine gun would be the decisive weapon. The idea was to place as much firepower in a key area as quickly as possible. However they still made one mistake. They put so much emphasis on the machine gun the rifleman was neglected. By 1945 the German rifleman was still using the bolt action Kar 98 rifle. Whereas the US developed the semi-automatic M1.
MG-42 is a very simple design as a matter a fact. Shermans was not known as the firefly, only the 17pdr (british gun) versions were which which were in short supply. Me-262 was 200kmh faster than any allied plane, and it was the first jet fighter, so of course it was complex, and had problems. The MAIN cause of axis defeat in Europe was that they didnt stand a chance against so overwhelming numbers, no matter what they produce. And the Soviets did the job, Germans had lost already in June 1944..
@aaKonda Right, after Operation Bagration June 1944, Germany was non-defensible even theoretically, even if there was no invasion in Normandy. Don't you think the same was true earlier? I mean, Kursk and/or Stalingrad? Or by losing momentum in summer 1941? I personally think that Germany lost on Sept 1, 1939. However, this is being a smart ass with a hind sight.
I would not say Germany lost in Sept 1, but they lost their chance to victory in Winter 1941-1942 when the Blitzkrieg was halted for the winter. The invasion in Soviet Union was the mistake Germany made. They had a marginal chance still in summer 1942 when they pushed hard in the south. I would say the Moscow 1941 was the most significant point, Stalingrad 1942-1943 was the turning point, Kursk 1943 was Germanys last desperate attempt and after that, all was lost.
@aaKonda the german success in summer 1942 was largely because of a horrendous mistake the russians made iin their ill-fated spring offensive. If Eremenko and Khrushev didn't f. upn Kharkov , the push to Stalingrad and Grozny may not have even happened. Further, Kleist was lucky to get away from the trap near Caucasus, if russians took Rostov, the Stalingrad disaster would be doubled.
Yeah agreed, but they still had a chance in the summer, which ended in disaster. Im reading Glantz's Stalingrad trilogy on the subject.
To your other point, would you call the AK-47 technologically superior to... say the G36 for example? No of course not, and I think its the same thing with the tanks in question. German tanks were technologically superior but could not be produced in sufficient numbers. That superiority can help you, but only to a certain point.
@aaKonda What do you think about such things as using diesel vs gas on the russian tanks? This was technologically superior decision accepted by all tanks of the next generation. Same was true for the placement of engine behind. I believe, except for Merkava, all modern tanks, use that design. But sure I understand what you mean - optics, communication equipment and finish quality was ... BMW vs Lada. Further, soviet labor was kids and women, as trained men-workers went to fight.
@aaKonda Hey! G36 is a much newer weapon! cant compare with AK-47. BTW, AK-47 has "borrowed" ideas from the germans. I am not arguing that russian technology was more advanced than German, of course it wasn't. In fact, the glorious USSR space program was fueled with ideas from V-2; which is of course true for the US. But for WW2 tasks a handful of russian weapons was better than german at that same time. E.g., T34 is better than Panzer 3 or 4.
Fascinating subject. More fun than real work. GTG.
@silver610310 Actually, Germany outright stole the STG-44 and gave it a larger bullet. Also, German T-34 was inferior, even in only matched by the Panzer IV. T-34-76 did not have a three man turret, 80mms of armor or that good a gun as later Panzer IVs would receive (long barreled 75.) Panzer IIIs could also use their superior radio equipment to smash a T-34.
@Tyco200 thanks for the note. not sure what are you talking about - who stole what, and waht is "german t34".... T34 was the best tank of ww2, it is a fact acknowledged by everyone, and, yes, germans had radios before the russians, and that helped them to last longer. Not sure what is your point. panzer Iv was a gasoline tank of an older design, produced in a relatively small numbers. what is so special about it?
Just because the Shermans and T-34's (which was an excellent tank) were available in massive numbers does not make them technologically superior, it just makes them more numerous. German were masters of technology in the limited resources they had. They knew they could never compete in numbers because their industry could never try to outproduce the massive Soviet and also western Allied industry.
@N2513Yat I think not. the Tiger's armour was way to heavy because of its shape, so fuel efficiency was still an issue. And it could not fire on the move because of a dangerous recoil
@N2513Yat As far as I understand, one advantage that T34 had was that the engine was behind the turret, like in the old Beetle. Since tanks have a "rear wheel drive", this design eliminate the drive shaft, and so the turret could be placed lower. As the result, the entire tank was smaller having the same armor thickness, power/engine size, weapons etc. I disagree with your last sentence - the Tiger was an offensive weapon. It was introduced in 1942, when Hitler hoped to conquer the world.
The shape of the Tiger DID dictate that more armor be placed on it to match against the increasing Russian threat of armor. Where as opposed to the Tiger, the T-34's more effective use of its armor by slanting it..THEN I understand what your getting at.
@N2513Yat Yeah, that's what I meant by shape. An effective design would permit the tank to be lighter and have just the same resistance to impacts, But pleaz don't get upset^^ I don't know much about WWII tanks.
I don't have hands on experience with the Tiger, but its really great to get into debates about these things. one argument leads to another and ya dive really deep into detail and find out amazing things.
@N2513Yat Yes, indeed, indeed lol.=) of course It results that one's gotta have some knowledge in the subject (Capt Obvious), which Im afraid I dont have in that case. And finding a good partner who's respectful to ur point of view - and doesn't go mad at you when ur contradicting his/her arguments - is getting quite difficult nowadays xD But like u said it can be very rewarding. Sorry Im just breaking down open doors, I gtg^^
@N2513Yat The Sherman was an admirable tank for the role it was designed for, infantry support and medium scouting. It was never designed to fight other tanks, the gun was a field gun, not a HV AT gun. The trouble is the Allies only introduced a competent panzer busting heavy tanl when it was almost all over
@N2513Yat I think that Sherman was a rather primitive tank, but I think that winning with numbers is not such a bad thing. It is better than losing because of numbers. Yes, the tiger was a good tank, but it came about too late in the war and in too little numbers. bad strategy on Hitler's part.
@aaKonda Look: in some sense, the ability to produce a good product in large numbers eaquals technological superiority. Imagine Germany had a masterpiece such as Abrams tank or Leopard or T-90 in 1940, but only a dozen of them, would that win the war? If they had a thousand of M-16s and one F-35? In mobile warfare on a large theater, not only "size", but numbers also matter
I would like to disagree really. I would call this industrial superiority, not technological. Altough I understand what you mean. I think the T-34 was the best tank of the war just because of that. But still I think the some German tanks were technological masterpieces, but they were lacking in production rating. We must also remember that it was not just the simplicity of the T-34 and the Sherman that made them numerous, but also the massive industry behind them.
@aaKonda Yes, this is an issue of semantics. What is interesting here is how the decision somewhere on the top can influence the outcome at the battlefield years down the road. In this situation, the decision about quality vs quantity wasn't in Germany' - I mean Nazi - favor. German people, those who survived, and happened to be in the West, actually won by losing the bloody war.
Patton superb in strategy? George Patton is overrated to the max. He shouldnt be even mentioned in the same sentence as Rommel or Guderian. If you really think Americans won in the western front because of strategy, you are way off. Better technology? Tiger was still far superior to the Firefly, and so was the Panther. Firefly was still just a Sherman with a good gun. Wolverines top speed was 32mph in the front use, which was fast, but it was very thinly armored and open topped.
@aaKonda Patton wasn't responsible for any strategy. You can blame the abysmal lack of finesse on Bradley and Eisenhower with their utterly unimaginative broad front and failure to even consider the Germans would try for hte Ardennes which she had done 2x before.
And by 60kmh, you are probably meaning the M18 Hellcat, instead of the Wolverine, but it had only 25mm of armor in the thickest point, which was penetrable by any German gun, including the very outdated 37mm PaK, and it relied purely on speed. It was an unbalanced design, but as a flanking TD, it did pretty good job. I would always choose the Jagdpanther, which in opinion, was the best tank destroyer in the WW2, having an excellent frontal armor, massive gun and good speed.
I don't know... if armies superiority is based on experience, I might have to put some chips down for the israeli army... everytime I hear the news...Israel's caught up in something... BUT your not gonna hear me ever say the modern German army doesnt deserve #1....they are gooood at what they do.
@Rico8458 Wow! Ar u serious? Do you know when it was the last time Germany won a war? 1870. They shouldda stopped right there right then.
This is like English national team being the World Champion. LOL.
Sorry man, but Germans play football much better than they fight wars. Consider that in 1940, Germany got to quarterfinals. then it didn't even make it to semis.
The Germans defeated Russia in World War 1 it can be argued. In the case of World War 2 it didn't matter how much better the Wehrmacht was. The German soldier fought with better weapons and tactics. There is one problem it was no match for overwhelming superior numbers. Yet Germany the country a little bigger than the state of Texas. With a population of 75,000,000. Was able to hold on as long as it did. It still took the Allies 6 years to finally beat the Wehrmacht down.
France was invaded by two armies too. The Italians to the south tried to take a easy victory but instead they were crushed by french alpine troops. I'm not French, but to be fair what country on continental Europe did not get crushed besides Russia (which is far to massive for effective Blitzkreg tactics)
ur right, but Russia was smashed to bits in the beginning, only her massive size, shitty roads, and freezing winter save Stalins sorry ass from being hung inside the Kremlin by German troops
@youngsamurai88 Actually youre referring to common misconceptions about Soviet military. In 1941 the USSR had arguably the strongest military in the world with a huge standing army, more and better tanks than the rest of the world combined, an experienced and powerful airforce, and good weapons. Soviet defeats in the early days of the war was more due to Stalin's stupidity and disbelief in the possibility of a German offensive as early as June 1941. They were unprepared. Read Moscow 1941.
@njchampnj The germans had better tanks at the start and better planes at the start. The russians just had way more of everything until the T34 tank came along.
@njchampnj Uh, not really. The Red Army was still reeling from the Purges in 1941, and although it had a huge army, much of its equipment was initially outdated. But you are half-right, by the end of the war the Red Army was the largest army in history, possessing more tanks and artillery, and experienced soldiers, commanders, and staff than all other participant forces combined.
@Scrinoverlord Can you name a russian commander with true military credentials who was executed? Purges of 1937-41 mostly got rid of a hundreds of incompetent henchmen who made their careers on suppressing anti-bolshevik peasant uprisings and mass executions. About "outdated equipment". Please compare a Soviet BT, T-26 or T-35 with the British "tanks" shown in this video. Let alone 2000+ T34s that Kremlin had by 1941. Do you believe in magic? red army "suddenly" became powerful?
@silver610310 Thing is, can you name a competent SU commander that replaced any of those "incompetent henchmen"? 75% of the officer corps in 1941 had held their post for less than a year, full of young, inexperienced yes-men. No, it's pretty obvious that though much of the SU officer corps before the Purge wasn't all-around great, their replacements were equally or more horrible, as evidently seen in the Winter War.
@Scrinoverlord Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, Vautin, Vlasov, Metretzkov, Koniev, Petrov, Bagramian, Rodimtzev... the list goes on. These are the generals that won the war. I wouldn't put Zhukov of Eremenko on that list because they were kinda dumb, but even they were quite capable, and definitely as neurotic as, say Guderian. The winter war was a smash (in the actual meaning) success because not a single army before or after was able to smash through such a well prepared defensive line.
Comparing SU tanks to BR tanks is irrelevant, as the two sides never fought each other in the war. Fact is, while the SU had a 4:1 ratio in tank numbers, and the T-34 and KV units were the most modern in the world, they made up very little of the Soviet tank force in June 1941. Alongside that, they lacked the communications, training and experience to use such weapons in an effective manner in the first year of the invasion.
@Scrinoverlord why can't we compare BR and SU tanks? Just look at the specs and compare, easiest thing! In 41, the soviet tank force was decimated because of the sudden and brilliant attack that wiped out the Red air force by Jun 23. WIthout knowing where the German tanks were, the SU tanks didn't have a chance to engage the German spearheads, and the Germans were not stupid to fight the superior T34s head-on. There were 2000 T34s in June41. "small fraction" but huge absolute number.
@silver610310 And the Axis had 5,200 tanks overall in the initial invasion, all of which was superior to the majority of the tank forces the Soviets had at that time in training, preparedness, equipment, and morale. Therefore it wasn't a matter of the Germans not engaging the T-34s head on, as they did multiple times and blew them out of the water. But this is, again, in the initial weeks of the war, not for the entire duration of the Eastern Front.
@Scrinoverlord If USSR attacked on June 21, the effect on the other side would be the same: panic, losses, retreat, and one problem over another - like fuel lost to the advancing enemy. As you know, out of 5000 german tanks only about 500 were Parzer IV, the rest were light assorted tanks including French, English and Czech. USSR had up to 25000. In head-on fight, Germans had no chance. Just read a wiki article about KV2 tanks for example, if you don't believe me...
@silver610310 So according to you, technology decides a war? I don't think so. No, the Red Army was at a severe disadvantage in 1941: incompetent officers, partial lack of equipment, insufficient motorized logistical support, and poor training. An invasion of Europe by the USSR on June 21 would lead to a strategic failure.
@Scrinoverlord Yes, I think technology is the most decisive factor. What else? War spirit, kamikaze style? Trained personnel is a part of technology. Military schools and academies, literate soldiers. And of course, courage and dedication
Lets assume you are right. Red Army 1941: "incompetent officers, partial lack of equipment, insufficient .. logistical support, and poor training". Result: USSR loses ~20,000 tanks, 3,000,000 soldiers and 2/3 of industry and agriculture, right? Next post pls..
@Scrinoverlord Then in 1944/45, a technically superior, overwhelming in numbers of tanks, planes, artillery and everything else including "competence" enteried The Reich. Red Army 1944 = Might and Power.
So: 1941 Red Army BAD; 1944 - GOOD. BAD minus 3 mln men, minus 20,000 tanks, minus factories in occupied territory becomes GOOD. BAD minus X = GOOD. This math is not working.
Explanation: in 1941, Red Army wasn't "bad". Those "incompetent officers" beat Hitler.
@Scrinoverlord Those "incompetent officers" were more competent than those they beat, that is, German officers. OK, assume all the dumb russians were killed in 41. It was the new ones who beat the Germans! Those who just got out of the high school were more competent than the german veterans... This is absurd. Hence, the "incompetence of red army officers" is absurd, BS. As is the lack of equipment, etc. Who had it in 1940-41? French? Germans? Brits? US? give me a break...
@silver610310 Tukachevsky, Bluykher (especially Bluykher, as he led a successful and brilliant campaign against Chinese warlords in the 1929 Sino-Soviet conflict), and Yegorov to name a few competent Soviet commanders purged. And you say the majority of those purged only got their titles from suppressing Whites, yet the majority of names you listed also got many of their credentials from the Russian Civil War at one point or another.
@Scrinoverlord Those "Chineese warlords" were probably peasants resisting expropriation of their harvest. Could have been groups of remaining Whites. Regardless, Blukher's experience in exterminating those already defeated and poorly armed small groups is unlikely to have helped him is stopping German armored divisions. He was a drunk and a womanizer. Blukher was shot, so without him was there a problem in the Far East? To the contrary, Japan was beaten in 1939 and never came back.
@Scrinoverlord A well-known detail about Blukher is that he was one of the executioners of Tukhacheveky. B. was good at that. He lacked special military education, and was himself, in fact, a warlord who happened to side with the Reds. Red army absorbed a lot of big and small gangs. Many of their commanders were purged. Yes, it is well known that a lot of former white officers, educated and talented were executed, but their numbers are not as high as the common literature cites.
@njchampnj You are absolutely correct about the strength of the Red Army, which is very rare. Most people are brainwashed into the misconception that it was "weak". I would not call Stalin exactly "stupid" though. This is miscalculation, not stupidity. Unless we believe that he take a magic pill to become "smart" afterwards. Ironically, Western Europe has to thank god for this "stupidity", otherwise it could be "liberated" by Stalin along with Berlin.
@silver610310 You are correct. Strategic mistake would be a more accurate categorization of Stalin's decisions in the spring of 1941. Stalin selectively ignored intelligence reports of a massive German offensive planned in the summer of 1941. He believed, not so irrationally, that such reports were the results of British intelligence services attempting ignite tensions and draw the USSR into the war on the Allied side. However, such a conclusion was misguided and almost cost the USSR dearly.
@njchampnj russia had more materials and men. but the army had little or no training... the generals wwere out classed on the ground... the only thing stalin did wrong was not giving the order of retreat.... thats why the germans took so many pows that first summer.. the reason the gemans lost the war is british and americans broke the german code.. you cant be outnumbered and have the enemy know where ur going to attack..
@njchampnj Haha, good equipment! I am guessing those T-35 and T-26s were actually "great tanks" hm? You're living in a fantasy. If was the French who fought the hardest with obsolete tactics. If they had used Wolf-Pack tactics, like the Germans, they would've marched through Berlin within a month. Soviet hardware was very sad. There are even accounts of how horribly trained their tank commanders were/hence how hard it was to repair broken down equipment!
@njchampnj Besides, Stalin, the idiot of all idiots, was too busy having his field marshals executed, and one of the finest of all men beaten to bloody hell (Truvachesky), who could have saved the weak and pathetic Russia. He had well though tactics, but Stalin was too busy beating him to force him into stating how he was "A Nazi!" Sure. Poor socialists. That's how they fail.
@youngsamurai88 Good job reciting biased textbooks and propaganda. The idea that Hitler "almost defeated" the weak and dumb Stalin is liked by everyone. By Goebbels to encourage the Germans to knock themselves out. By Communists to excuse for the f-up in 1941 and present themselves as innocent victims. Churchill and Roosevelt to explain why they supported Communism and betrayed Eastern and Central Europe. And by you - to feel superior to the Red Army reservists who smashed elite SS divisions.
Everyone,s an expert now! pity you wern,t around at the time, we might all be living in peace by now, - nothing,s changed and never will , people like to kill and maim others, it,s allso good for buisness.
No. The video is longer than it took the Germans to rout the US army at Kasserine Pass on their 1st encounter in 1943. Please tell us about the outstanding military bravery of your country in 1940. Doing good business as usual, hey?
Ive already spotted two problems with this film. In the first part they said the Polish airforce was destroyed during the first day of action and thats not true. Polish planes kept flying until they had no more runways to fly from. And in this 2nd part they failed to say anything about how heavy the German naval losses were in the Norway battle.
Most Polish planes destroyed on the first day were old trainers and some scout planes. Nearly all of the fighters and bombers had been moved to remote airstrips to avoid being caught on the ground.
Yeah is this guy like stupid and don't forget different countries tell wars differently for instance my textbook for social studies says Austria broke free from Germany in WWII you joined them willingly ffs!
This guy is clouded by the "factual" books he's reading. Maybe someday he will realize none of what you hear (or read) and only half of what you see is real and I don't even think that rule works any more. Don't believe anything unless you see it for yourself IN PERSON.
It's become a similar cliché, that the French airforce was destroyed on its airfields during the first day of battle in May 1940. Actually most French aircraft fought fiercely during the 5 weeks of battle. I guess this cliché is based on German propaganda, and is reinforced by the final defeat of Poland and France.
Poland lasted just 1 week less then France and yet its armys were much smaller. I think that shows how hard the Poles fought. They also gave the Germans one hell of a bloody nose.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Polish fought hard and compared to the French they REALLY made the Germans pay. The French basically didn't have any heart for the fight and were defeatist from day one. The Poles should be quite proud, the French... Quite ashamed.
As usual after a defeat, each ally blames the others Poles, French, British, Belgians Actually the French suffered 100,000 casualties, and shot down some 1,000 German aircraft. What was really shameful was the Generals' outdated knowledge of war. Anyway none on the continent had any chance to win against Nazi Germany allied with the communists. Britain was saved mainly because Hitler had just no plan to invade it until July 1940.
Britain was saved because she defended her own airspace!forestalling any invasion attempt, also Hitler after his luftwaffes failed attempt at knocking out the raf!should of listened to his staff who were all for fighting Britain and the commenwealth on the african continent! this was where they felt the decisive blow could be made against the British Empire and if Britain were defeated?this may of delayed Americas entry into the european theater of war fullstop?its just a thought!!?
Hi mate, the common misconception the French ACTIVE and MODERN aircrafts and pilots was significantly reduced on the first day. This was due to heavy Luftwaffe attacks on airbases, and fighter sorties. The reserve and second line units were pulled up at this point and continued on but the best french pilots were dead.
Zeroh, on May 10th, the Luftwaffe attacked 47 aerodromes, destroyed some 60 French aircrafts, and lost 323 of its own aircrafts. I was certainly a blow to the French AF, yet surely not the destruction of their active elite. They continued fighting until the armistice, and many of the survivors made it to North Africa or to England.
A link ? I have these informations from several books, particularly the best overview on the French Air Force in 1939-1940: P. Facon, L'Armee de l'Air dans la Tourmente" (a balanced analysis by a professional historian), and J. Gisclon, "Les 1,000 Victoires de la Chasse Française" (a day-by-day account of air fights, by a veteran of the Lafayette squadron).
technically heavy naval losses can be the loss of 6 Battleships and 10 Destroyers and you can destroy an air force by destroying their available runways its really not that hard
@32silvercoins I would just like to pay tribute to the Polish pilots who defended Britain. I read somewhere (sorry, forgot) that they killed twice as much german planes per pilot as compared to british units. They must have been some crazy mother...kers! Honestly, I don't know how many they were. 50? 500? Anyone knows? So, Polish airforce went on without Poland
Also, don't forget that Poland caved in faster because it was stabbed in the back by the USSR. While Br and Fr watched.
Germans hmm... they whas strong but not too strong>! the britains what the sea kings russians whas hmm.... dont know... Alied's whas the best the tock Ivojima that whas the bloodies place!
skral, you apparently have a Westernized view of WW2. Iwo Jima was bloody, but so was Okinawa. Stalingrad was the single bloodiest battle, and the Russians were the key to Allied victory. Had the Nazis not invaded the Soviets and visa versa, the Allies would've been screwed to say the least. Britain was the sea king, due to gross negligence of German navy. However, even Britain was stretched with combat in 3 major areas. Also, please spell correctly.
yeah if Hitler had waited to invade Russia Germany probably would have conquered Britain, the Middle East and probably most if not all of Russia and then we probably would all be doing the Nazi Salute and all that other stuff
yeah buddy Hitler had many chances to win the war if he had destroyed the BEF during the Dunkirk incident Britain would have been unable to fight for a few years and the RAF was on the brink of defeat during the Battle of Britain even the British admit to it so you should go read a book because it had the BEST military in the world during WWII
What are you talking about: "the best military in the world during WWII"? They were the best by killing innocent people! Sorry, but you have not an inch of an idea what "people" like Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich,
Goebbels, Göring and so on were! They were all war criminals and first of all cowardly murderers!!
I'm not talking about the Nazis talking about the Wehrmacht I hate the Nazis I'm a freaking Jew so don't give me any crap about me not knowing what I'm talking about because I probably know more about WWII than you do
In other words: you're distinguishing between the Nazis and the Wehrmacht. What a significant difference!!! Can you tell me what is to be understand with "freaking" jew?
Yes. There is. Many Wehrmacht commanders had no idea of the atrocities being committed. Remember the SS Waffen largely ran the concentration/slaughter camps. Take a look at commanders like Rommel, and also try to know what the hell you're talking about in the future.
There was a Wehrmacht officer who tried to save jews by getting them out of a walled city onto trucks, but the SS guards stopped him, so he went and grabbed Wehrmacht troops and they almost fought, but the SS troops surrendered and let him take the jews and so he saved them.
Germany tried and failed to destroy the BEF at Dunkirk, due to the actions of the RAF. They later failed to destroy the RAF, not only due to the switch of attack focus from airbases to London, but also because the Luftwaffe suffered much heavier casualties than the Royals because they were fighting over enemy territory. Britain was saved by British valour, not German incompetence.
Don't forget about the fact that the German plains weren't meant to be used to fight dogfights they were built to support the ground battles also Hitler ordered a permanent halt at Dunkirk which gave the British time to evacuate more and more troops
Right. You may add that, in May-June 1940, the French Air Force shot down some 1,000 German airplanes and captured 700 German airmen. This was a serious attrition of the German airpower, which certainly contributed to Hitler's unability to invade Britain early in the summer, and gave the RAF time to build up.
The BEF was at Hitler's mercy, he could 've detroyed it but he decided not to still hoping to make peace with the British. The pig churchill of course did not appreciate this act. LEARN HISTORY. The RAF suffered high casualties during the battle of FRance . The Luftwaffe had total air superiority.
Yeah, I guess he should have joined up with Hitler, cause Hitler & the Nazis were such nice people. Whose books have you been reading, Pat Buchanan's?
@jakefree25 Aha, and since Hitler wasn't so nice, Churchill decided to be friends with Stalin, who was such a kind and gentle bloke. They had a lot of fun drinking wine in Tehran and Yalta, divided Europe and helped Communists to build their mighty military.
Germany tried and failed to destroy the BEF at Dunkirk, due to the actions of the French army who protected the Brit's rear. If Hitler had the nerve, he could have easily mounted an amphibiouis invasion & utterly swamped Britain since the British had so few troops, guns, tanks & even rifles and MGs left after they ran out of France.
As far as I know, Hitler refused the attack on the escaping forces, still hoping that Britain would ally with him. The forces would have been an easy target for the Luftwaffe, even without a ground assault.
The Luftwaffe inflicted serious damage on both the army and the ships there as well as the army did keep up pressure on the Brits. But most of the German army was re-organizing for the final push through southern France.
You must be joking - what possible evidence is there that Hitler considered allying with Britain after the fall of France? Even before the capture of Paris, the best Hitler seems to have hoped for was a British acceptance of German conquests on the continent - he never thought the UK would join him as an ally.
Hitler never wanted a 2 front war, and why did he give the halt order in Dunkerque has been a matter of debate, one of the theories which exist is that he wanted to make diplomatic peace with Britain before invading to USSR.
Very few Nazis actually wanted war with britain, Rudolf Hess tried to fly to Britain to disucuss peace, but was arrested. Altough this was done without Hitlers direct acceptance.
I support your argument. I just said the same thing to jimmy27. If you read some of Hitler's personal conversations among his members, You read about him holding the British in VERY high regaurds. It is therefore my STRONG opinion that you and I are very much correct.
A very true comment. But as always I think the French are being marginalized. Hitler had a high regard for the British from his own experiences in ww1. There is NO question that the French were THE winners of that war, despite what Hollywood might make you think. Attacking France made sense to him in using the new strategy yield it's most while it was still new. Had he attacked Russia first he might have advanced to the Urals but no further, and still have a now wiser France to the west.
Even having spent entire year producing his tanks and other weapons, pumping their muscles and stockpiling French cheese and wine, even having the huge element of surprise on its size, having the benefit of complete air superiority, the Wermacht got bogged down east of Moscow and couldn't reach a single objective of the Operation Barbarossa. Urals is another 1,500 miles east!
@guysmiley00 such an evidence might not exist because it could have only been inside the Hitler's skull, his and few of his top brass. Same on the british side. Who wants the people to know the truth? A lot of history is not documented. Some documents might have existed but then been destroyed. Suppose Oswald was working for CIA (or KGB), do we expect to have a memo in some archive? What do we know about true Bush's reasons of Iraq war? WMDs, right?
I'll have to disagree with you on the possibility of a German invasion of Britain at that time - the Royal Navy still ruled the seas, imposing a punishing blockade on Germany, and the RAF still prevented the Luftwaffe from ruling the skies.
The Germans could've used their navy and airforce to establish a safe & wide enough corridor across the Channel to land enough troops to establish a beachhead, then build airfields, The only good planes the Brits had then were fighters but most them had only .303 machine guns, useless against armor or entrenchments. The UK bombers & bombs, 250lb max, proved useless against the German in France.The Germans shot most of them down with FLAK. The UK had very few tanks, guns or even submachine guns
The Grmans had a FAR inferior navy, in NO way able to support an invasion. The Hurricanes and Spitfires were pretty much equal to the German fighters of the day, but fuel loimitations on operational capacity was the major advantage for the British. It was a close cal for a while, but in the end it went as it did, noty only to Göring's follies, but also to logistics, which since 1915 was being held as the crux of generalship, in which the nazies didn't reallt excel due to political circumstance.
@lektrum They could have used their uboats, airforce and smaller ships to seal off a corridor in the Channel.The British had good fighters but lacked any decent bombers which was not a Luftwaffe problem. So if they went for a mass airborne attack coupled with the corridor across the channel. they could have secured a toehold on GB to grab airfields to bring in more reinforcements & firepower. Even 2 whole Nazi divisions would have swamped the available army the Brits had in the UK in '40
@jakefree25 Well maybe. But armies are not just soldiers.
In WWII for every 1 frontline soldier there were 17 supplying them. German admirals understood quite well that resupply across the channel was precarious at best. This is shown abundantly in the supply challenge the Allies had in 44. And resupply by air would have failed simply by the events in the Battle of Britain. The Germans could not take Britain in 1940.
@OneWorldHistory I think you are right. Germans also could not defeat Russia, and would not have been able to hold on to Poland. WW2 is an example of misunderstanding of simplest strategic dogmas. Otto Bismarck saw this in the 19th century and warned Germany from a war on two fronts, or from war on one front if that front was with Russia.
And the German professionals knew they could not take Britain in '40. Goering could spout and fume, but the core German General Staff were aware it was a bluff after the failure of Goering's knocking out the RAF. Hitler undoubtably was aware of this as well, hence his lunacy, dependant on continued victory and well explained in Mein Kamph, began to look east.
@OneWorldHistory Actually, it was the massing of large Soviet forces that, cannot be described as defensive, across the German-Soviet "border" inside conquered Poland that was the primary factor for Germany's preemptive strike in 1941. They didn't want to go to war then - they knew war was inevitable, but they didn't want to go to war just then because they simply weren't ready. See the research done by former GPU officer Viktor Suvorov.
@jakefree25 If that would have happened, Stalin would have whacked Hitler in the back with all the might of then intact Red Army. This would have been 1945 but with millions more soldiers and thousands more tanks pouring into Germany and Romania's oil fields. Hitler figured this out and tried to save the situation by his preemptive attack on the USSR in summer 1941. As a result, he prolonged his life for almost four more years.
@jakefree25 What? Germany didn't have the airforce to conduct a large-scale airborne attack. And if they could have "sealed off" a corridor for an amphibious landing, then why didn't they?
Germany didn't have the surface fleet to pull it off. They'd lost most of what they did have invading Norway. Even without the Royal Navy, Germany didn't have the ships to bring an army across the Channel. And the Nazis would still have to deal with all the Imperial troops in the UK. You're way off, here.
@jakefree25 You're incredibly wrong about the British airforce. The Germans were the ones with the bomber deficit, as they thought the airforce should be used to support the army, and therefore focused on tactical bombers. The British doctrine called for strategic bombers, and so they had plenty of heavies just perfect for tearing a concentrated amphibious invasion fleet to bits.
@guysmiley00 these bombers didn't help Britain to protect Norway or Crete. I think heavy bombers don't work against invading army, is there a single example of that? To the contrary, Stuka's proved effective in stopping soviet tanks.
@silver610310 I don't think either of your comparisons are good analogies for a German invasion of Britain. The Norweigan invasion force was largely landed by the time the Brits knew what was going on (they were sure the Germans were trying to break out into the Atlantic) - not likely during Sealion. Crete is, if anything, a demonstration of how air power dominates sea power - and the British didn't have any real bomber presence in that area anyway. Again, wouldn't happen during Sealion.
@silver610310 I would also note the heavy use of bombers in the Allied breakout from Normandy. Stukas were indeed effective against individual armored units, but couldn't do much to stop the Red Army on a larger scale. It's a question of tactical v. strategic use of air power, and I think that the history of war after WW2 has demonstrated the power of heavy bombers against both production and actual ground forces. There's a reason those B-52s are still flying.
@guysmiley00 strategic bombing IN WW2 is overrated. Nazis were increasing military production through 1944; it was the loss of land to allies that caused the reduction in 1945. Having said all that, I don't deny that SeaLion would be unsuccessful. I think it was more likely to succeed than Barbarossa if taken out of context of other fronts. Sea Lion would fail mainly because Germany would have to open its eastern front to Stalin, who would not sit wait with land invasion as Allies did in 39/40
@silver610310 Well its a halftrue. Yes under Speers command,Thirrd Reich economy rised up production, but... They have all industrialized Europe under their command! After all their production was still only part of what GB USA and SSSR produced.
@MrLasicak Bomber offenizive reduced german ability to increase their production, outrun them of fuel, and what was most important, cut their suply lines. German economy was paralyzed . And dont forget, bomber offenzive started in 1943 in 1944 it was on its top and at the end of 44 and spring 45 it brought its "fruits"
@guysmiley00 You are right, but Bismarck was sunk on may 27th (a couple of days after the Durnkirk), and until this happened and possibly after, the germans had the illusion that they could win that part of the war too. The top Nazis were talented in some respects, but they were not too bright in the arena of international diplomacy and possibly geography too.
@silver610310 The Dunkirk evacuation occurred in 1940; the Bismarck was sunk in 1941. Still, I don't think she played a role in German naval considerations at Dunkirk, as she wasn't commissioned until August of '40, well after the end of Operation Dynamo in 03 June 1940.
@guysmiley00 U-o-ps, you're right, I was wrong by a year. I thought the ambitious activity of Bismarck showed that the Germans were pretty cocky about their growing naval power. History showed that they overestimated themselves at sea just they did on land or in the air, but the initial success in sinking the best British ship in five minutes could be viewed as Yamamoto's success in Perl Harbor or the beginning of Barbarossa.
Its amazing that sadly some americans believe british propaganda and bullshit too.Hitler let them escape holding back for 3 crucial days only the lufwaffe was fighting them in that time.And hitler was certainly not afraid of britain why would he be.
Don't forget, both the high command & Hitler were nervous about the condition of the armored spearhead. Most of France was still unconquered as well as the French army was still largely intact. The low areas around Dunkirk are too wet for those older tanks to operate effectively too. So holding the tanks back then using the infantry & air power made sense.
Please. the area around Dunkirk to wet? Maybe so, but they were just a few kilometre away. A concentrated attack, with or without tanks would have put them in a very precarious position. After Dunkirk the french army was far from largely intact. It lost the bulk of their most mobile and battleworthy dvisions with it.
French fries...hahahhaaaha fucking frech race is pussy race, they could not fight at all...shut the fuck up french fries.
13341ggcaus 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@13341ggcaus Well let me give you a list of Frenchmen beating your little dirty fat english ass:
Norman invasion of England.
War of the 1th, 2nd,3rd,4th,5th coalition.
Battle of Morlaix, Battle of Lunalonge, Battle of Ardres, Battle of La Rochelle, Battle of Chiset, Battle of Bauge.
And the Siege of Orleans (A woman owns you)
Battle of Fontenoy were 3.
You stupid ammies used tens of thousand of French Charlevilles in our revolution and without France you would be under HM flag.
VictumRoManius 3 months ago
Ah France.....an easy vacation for the German Army........
gopconservative78 6 months ago 2
@gopconservative78 and vietnamese
Abdikarimelmi 5 months ago
@Abdikarimelmi that's true they got Dien Ben Flu
gopconservative78 5 months ago
omg i never head so many mistakes in single documatry in 5 min ... as most u can watch it for fun but any facts or date presented iin this movie i sugest keeping for yourself untill proven
awful awful stuff
sexyxrs 7 months ago
Just imagine Hitler waited untill 1943 to invade France the war would of changed.
v19d 9 months ago
Xaxa france gay fag nation fel in 10 days under hitler hah loosers suckups of the USA cant atack any 1 on ground but use cruse misciles on poor libya people. once a fag always a fag , most gay nation ever. only thing good u have is woman for sex nothing else ur wasting air of our planet scrubs.
MilosKole 10 months ago
@MilosKole and I suppose you're country would have lasted longer against an all out attack by one of the strongest military's in the world? and ya the US is using missiles to destroy airbases in Libya so that their insane leader can't make air strikes against rebels and civilian locations. Learn what you're talking about before you start saying shit you inept fuck.
NikeWitness19 9 months ago
@MilosKole omg, u are so incult and dumb..oki, i will be fine and learn u something at your little gay brain....in 1806 the french army were in Berlin after 19 days of fight....interresting no?
MrKoralt 6 months ago 2
@MilosKole Wow, little pig boy apparently believes america didn't help anyone... How about France, Britain and even Russia's early majority of tanks? What about the bombings? What about the 4.5 million Russian/German women raped by Russian pigs (who truly were 'scum')? What about the fact that the Panzer III was absolutely outclassed by most tanks in France? You're a very sad individual.
Tyco200 4 months ago
@MilosKole And Gadahfi can have a nice day in hell, by the way.
Tyco200 4 months ago
fail of france
videonfan 11 months ago
For Germany the "invasion of France" was a vacation for the German Army
gopconservative78 11 months ago
@gopconservative78 Right, the "vacation" only cost the Germans 150,000 dead, wounded and missing.
Scrinoverlord 11 months ago
@Scrinoverlord there were only ~30,000 dead, most of the wounded had probably returned... to be killed elsewhere. In return to these losses, the Reich got all the economic potential of France and the small countries. This still didn't help, but regardless, the element of surprise makes wonders, look at the 6 day war between Israel and Arabs..
How could the British and French command miss this Ardennes thing? My explanation: cowardly incompetent fat cats. Someone should have purged their ranks.
silver610310 11 months ago
@silver610310 You know, up until this point I thought you were an intelligible person, but calling the British and French high command "cowardly, incompetent fat cats" is ignorant to a whole new level. I think you missed a little event called World War I, where the Allies, particularly the French, suffered horribly. As a result they were much less prepared to fight a war than the Nazis.
Scrinoverlord 11 months ago
@Scrinoverlord Being less prepared is exactly their fault. In WW1 Germany was the defeated side, and, as I hope you know, was specifically forbidden to "prepare". That French and British suffered in WW1 makes it even more puzzling how could they allow 1940 to happen. In not incompetence, then what - treason?
silver610310 11 months ago
@silver610310 The British and French were well-prepared in 1940 - to fight WW1 again. One could argue that the defeat suffered by Germany in 1919 actually provided an advantage, as it swept away the old system and ideas just in time for new minds to exploit to full advantage the incredible technological advances of the era.
guysmiley00 11 months ago
@silver610310 The Ardennes thing was really just an extension of the lack of understanding the Allies had about armor. The Ardennes had only a few narrow roads running through it, and most military thinkers considered them far too small to move substantial numbers of troops through in anything like a short period. The Germans, having separated armor from infantry, realized it could be done. Still, it took nothing short of a logistical miracle and tremendous luck to pull it off.
guysmiley00 11 months ago
A 10- min video was enough
Aryanperse 1 year ago
I love how everyone thinks the the outcome of the war hindered on the smallest things.
"aww they only won because they had this specific gun/tank/plane/bomb/dude."
Theres alot more to war than just individual weapons and people.
nikamungus 1 year ago
@nikamungus I agree 100%. Central Powers had NO chance.
One other reason people cite for Germany's defeat is "russian winter". That is very right. They only need to add "spring", "fall" and "summer".
In my opinion, the disaster in France had many factors, but the cowardliness of the British and French command and incompetence of officers was one of the crucial reasons. The equipment and soldiers were fine.
silver610310 11 months ago
If you want to CRINGE really really hard, just read the comments on any WW2 video.
Farkkking hell, amazing how gay some people can be.
karlkarlkarl1234 1 year ago
wheres part 1 gone?
LtChris909 1 year ago
I would much rather be an anonymous infantryman than ride around in French or American tanks that basically had "Target" painted in big letters all over them. Germans better understood armored warfare than the US did, even after having our butts kicked by Panzers a few times. We finally "got it" in about mid '44 but the French were defeated before they got a chance to learn anything about deploying armor.
randy109 2 years ago
germans are so superior to all other armies then and now.
Rico8458 2 years ago
I would say the German soldiers were very disciplined, but certainly not superior.
The Americans had General Patton, who was superb when it came to strategy.
Plus near the end of the war, the Americans had better technology. They had the Firefly tank that knocked out Tiger tanks, a small tank called the Wolverine that could reach 60 mph.
At sea, they had the Hedgehog, which surrounded a U-boat with an oval of bombs and imploded the hull.
That superior attitude helped lead to their downfall.
AppleSouffle 2 years ago
Yet the optical system used by the British and Americans were blatantly inferior to that of German tanks. German infantry tactics on the squad level revolved around the machine gun. The rifleman was there to support the machine gun. It proved superior to other armies. The American commanders incorrectly believed the machine gun was there to support the rifleman. They also incorrectly believed the tank destroyers were supposed to fight tanks.
thatkidinthegreenhat 2 years ago
@thatkidinthegreenhat I agree, there were many elements of tactics that Germans understood better. One of this was their ability to switch to tactical defense in a strategic offensive, which worked well against constant russian counterattacks. These tactical advantages didn't help to alleviate the strategic failures of german command in the long run, but... make a great example. I never heard about " rifleman was there to support the machine gun". learned something. Thank you!!
silver610310 11 months ago
Yes the German ideas as far as infantry were the rifleman supports the machine gun. They knew that the machine gun would be the decisive weapon. The idea was to place as much firepower in a key area as quickly as possible. However they still made one mistake. They put so much emphasis on the machine gun the rifleman was neglected. By 1945 the German rifleman was still using the bolt action Kar 98 rifle. Whereas the US developed the semi-automatic M1.
thatkidinthegreenhat 11 months ago
better technology? V-1, V-2, MG-42, ME-262, the TIGER...extremely complex compared to the beefed sherman..which is known as the "firefly"
Ironically, one of the main causes for the axis defeat in Europe was because the German army produced complexity over simplicity.
For example, Tigers/panthers vs sherman.T-34 numbers never lie
N2513Yat 2 years ago
MG-42 is a very simple design as a matter a fact. Shermans was not known as the firefly, only the 17pdr (british gun) versions were which which were in short supply. Me-262 was 200kmh faster than any allied plane, and it was the first jet fighter, so of course it was complex, and had problems. The MAIN cause of axis defeat in Europe was that they didnt stand a chance against so overwhelming numbers, no matter what they produce. And the Soviets did the job, Germans had lost already in June 1944..
aaKonda 2 years ago
@aaKonda Right, after Operation Bagration June 1944, Germany was non-defensible even theoretically, even if there was no invasion in Normandy. Don't you think the same was true earlier? I mean, Kursk and/or Stalingrad? Or by losing momentum in summer 1941? I personally think that Germany lost on Sept 1, 1939. However, this is being a smart ass with a hind sight.
silver610310 11 months ago
@silver610310
I would not say Germany lost in Sept 1, but they lost their chance to victory in Winter 1941-1942 when the Blitzkrieg was halted for the winter. The invasion in Soviet Union was the mistake Germany made. They had a marginal chance still in summer 1942 when they pushed hard in the south. I would say the Moscow 1941 was the most significant point, Stalingrad 1942-1943 was the turning point, Kursk 1943 was Germanys last desperate attempt and after that, all was lost.
aaKonda 11 months ago
@aaKonda the german success in summer 1942 was largely because of a horrendous mistake the russians made iin their ill-fated spring offensive. If Eremenko and Khrushev didn't f. upn Kharkov , the push to Stalingrad and Grozny may not have even happened. Further, Kleist was lucky to get away from the trap near Caucasus, if russians took Rostov, the Stalingrad disaster would be doubled.
silver610310 11 months ago
@silver610310
Yeah agreed, but they still had a chance in the summer, which ended in disaster. Im reading Glantz's Stalingrad trilogy on the subject.
To your other point, would you call the AK-47 technologically superior to... say the G36 for example? No of course not, and I think its the same thing with the tanks in question. German tanks were technologically superior but could not be produced in sufficient numbers. That superiority can help you, but only to a certain point.
aaKonda 11 months ago
@aaKonda What do you think about such things as using diesel vs gas on the russian tanks? This was technologically superior decision accepted by all tanks of the next generation. Same was true for the placement of engine behind. I believe, except for Merkava, all modern tanks, use that design. But sure I understand what you mean - optics, communication equipment and finish quality was ... BMW vs Lada. Further, soviet labor was kids and women, as trained men-workers went to fight.
silver610310 11 months ago
@aaKonda Hey! G36 is a much newer weapon! cant compare with AK-47. BTW, AK-47 has "borrowed" ideas from the germans. I am not arguing that russian technology was more advanced than German, of course it wasn't. In fact, the glorious USSR space program was fueled with ideas from V-2; which is of course true for the US. But for WW2 tasks a handful of russian weapons was better than german at that same time. E.g., T34 is better than Panzer 3 or 4.
Fascinating subject. More fun than real work. GTG.
silver610310 11 months ago
@silver610310 Actually, Germany outright stole the STG-44 and gave it a larger bullet. Also, German T-34 was inferior, even in only matched by the Panzer IV. T-34-76 did not have a three man turret, 80mms of armor or that good a gun as later Panzer IVs would receive (long barreled 75.) Panzer IIIs could also use their superior radio equipment to smash a T-34.
Tyco200 4 months ago
@Tyco200 thanks for the note. not sure what are you talking about - who stole what, and waht is "german t34".... T34 was the best tank of ww2, it is a fact acknowledged by everyone, and, yes, germans had radios before the russians, and that helped them to last longer. Not sure what is your point. panzer Iv was a gasoline tank of an older design, produced in a relatively small numbers. what is so special about it?
silver610310 4 months ago
Just because the Shermans and T-34's (which was an excellent tank) were available in massive numbers does not make them technologically superior, it just makes them more numerous. German were masters of technology in the limited resources they had. They knew they could never compete in numbers because their industry could never try to outproduce the massive Soviet and also western Allied industry.
aaKonda 2 years ago
oh yeah yeah ... please don't think I was trying to say the shermans were technilogically matched to the Tiger... that would be stupid to say. lol
The point I was making was the same as yours.. the tiger was WAAAAAY more advanced. The Allies only won because of numbers.
N2513Yat 2 years ago
@N2513Yat I think not. the Tiger's armour was way to heavy because of its shape, so fuel efficiency was still an issue. And it could not fire on the move because of a dangerous recoil
audifaxcimeski 2 years ago
heavy because of its SHAPE????
....uuh.. no...just flat out no.
The Tiger was heavy because it was BURIED in armor plating....
I dont know what comment your replying to...but I'll review..
The tiger was a damn dinosaur..
it had better armor, and firepower.
it lacked maneuverability, simplicity, speed.
This is all in comparison to the T-34s and Shermans.
The tiger was a testament to Hitlers increasing policy of defending every foot of the German Reich.
N2513Yat 2 years ago
@N2513Yat As far as I understand, one advantage that T34 had was that the engine was behind the turret, like in the old Beetle. Since tanks have a "rear wheel drive", this design eliminate the drive shaft, and so the turret could be placed lower. As the result, the entire tank was smaller having the same armor thickness, power/engine size, weapons etc. I disagree with your last sentence - the Tiger was an offensive weapon. It was introduced in 1942, when Hitler hoped to conquer the world.
silver610310 11 months ago
The shape of the Tiger DID dictate that more armor be placed on it to match against the increasing Russian threat of armor. Where as opposed to the Tiger, the T-34's more effective use of its armor by slanting it..THEN I understand what your getting at.
N2513Yat 2 years ago
@N2513Yat Yeah, that's what I meant by shape. An effective design would permit the tank to be lighter and have just the same resistance to impacts, But pleaz don't get upset^^ I don't know much about WWII tanks.
audifaxcimeski 2 years ago
gotcha... I know what you mean.
I don't have hands on experience with the Tiger, but its really great to get into debates about these things. one argument leads to another and ya dive really deep into detail and find out amazing things.
N2513Yat 2 years ago
@N2513Yat Yes, indeed, indeed lol.=) of course It results that one's gotta have some knowledge in the subject (Capt Obvious), which Im afraid I dont have in that case. And finding a good partner who's respectful to ur point of view - and doesn't go mad at you when ur contradicting his/her arguments - is getting quite difficult nowadays xD But like u said it can be very rewarding. Sorry Im just breaking down open doors, I gtg^^
audifaxcimeski 2 years ago
@N2513Yat The Sherman was an admirable tank for the role it was designed for, infantry support and medium scouting. It was never designed to fight other tanks, the gun was a field gun, not a HV AT gun. The trouble is the Allies only introduced a competent panzer busting heavy tanl when it was almost all over
jakefree25 2 years ago
@N2513Yat I think that Sherman was a rather primitive tank, but I think that winning with numbers is not such a bad thing. It is better than losing because of numbers. Yes, the tiger was a good tank, but it came about too late in the war and in too little numbers. bad strategy on Hitler's part.
silver610310 11 months ago
I apologize if I was even HINTING that the sherman was as advanced as the Tiger...
if I was a tank commander of a sherman in June 1944, the rest of my crew would be wondering why I refused to ride in it. FUCK THAT
N2513Yat 2 years ago
@aaKonda Look: in some sense, the ability to produce a good product in large numbers eaquals technological superiority. Imagine Germany had a masterpiece such as Abrams tank or Leopard or T-90 in 1940, but only a dozen of them, would that win the war? If they had a thousand of M-16s and one F-35? In mobile warfare on a large theater, not only "size", but numbers also matter
silver610310 11 months ago
@silver610310
I would like to disagree really. I would call this industrial superiority, not technological. Altough I understand what you mean. I think the T-34 was the best tank of the war just because of that. But still I think the some German tanks were technological masterpieces, but they were lacking in production rating. We must also remember that it was not just the simplicity of the T-34 and the Sherman that made them numerous, but also the massive industry behind them.
aaKonda 11 months ago
@aaKonda Yes, this is an issue of semantics. What is interesting here is how the decision somewhere on the top can influence the outcome at the battlefield years down the road. In this situation, the decision about quality vs quantity wasn't in Germany' - I mean Nazi - favor. German people, those who survived, and happened to be in the West, actually won by losing the bloody war.
silver610310 11 months ago
Patton superb in strategy? George Patton is overrated to the max. He shouldnt be even mentioned in the same sentence as Rommel or Guderian. If you really think Americans won in the western front because of strategy, you are way off. Better technology? Tiger was still far superior to the Firefly, and so was the Panther. Firefly was still just a Sherman with a good gun. Wolverines top speed was 32mph in the front use, which was fast, but it was very thinly armored and open topped.
aaKonda 2 years ago
@aaKonda Patton wasn't responsible for any strategy. You can blame the abysmal lack of finesse on Bradley and Eisenhower with their utterly unimaginative broad front and failure to even consider the Germans would try for hte Ardennes which she had done 2x before.
jakefree25 2 years ago
And by 60kmh, you are probably meaning the M18 Hellcat, instead of the Wolverine, but it had only 25mm of armor in the thickest point, which was penetrable by any German gun, including the very outdated 37mm PaK, and it relied purely on speed. It was an unbalanced design, but as a flanking TD, it did pretty good job. I would always choose the Jagdpanther, which in opinion, was the best tank destroyer in the WW2, having an excellent frontal armor, massive gun and good speed.
aaKonda 2 years ago
I don't know... if armies superiority is based on experience, I might have to put some chips down for the israeli army... everytime I hear the news...Israel's caught up in something... BUT your not gonna hear me ever say the modern German army doesnt deserve #1....they are gooood at what they do.
N2513Yat 2 years ago
@Rico8458 Wow! Ar u serious? Do you know when it was the last time Germany won a war? 1870. They shouldda stopped right there right then.
This is like English national team being the World Champion. LOL.
Sorry man, but Germans play football much better than they fight wars. Consider that in 1940, Germany got to quarterfinals. then it didn't even make it to semis.
silver610310 11 months ago
The Germans defeated Russia in World War 1 it can be argued. In the case of World War 2 it didn't matter how much better the Wehrmacht was. The German soldier fought with better weapons and tactics. There is one problem it was no match for overwhelming superior numbers. Yet Germany the country a little bigger than the state of Texas. With a population of 75,000,000. Was able to hold on as long as it did. It still took the Allies 6 years to finally beat the Wehrmacht down.
thatkidinthegreenhat 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
germans are so retarded
SithWarrior338 2 years ago
the germans should won if they not had attacked the netherlands!
therealwouter 2 years ago
Yeah the Dutch really gave them a good fight, like 5 days
jakefree25 2 years ago
germany would have won if they did not attack ussr
communipaw2009 2 years ago 2
Itsbeenagoodday, The UK wasn't crushed by hte Germans and Italians in North Africa.
TowerHamletsNeil 2 years ago
France was invaded by two armies too. The Italians to the south tried to take a easy victory but instead they were crushed by french alpine troops. I'm not French, but to be fair what country on continental Europe did not get crushed besides Russia (which is far to massive for effective Blitzkreg tactics)
Itsbeenagoodday 2 years ago
ur right, but Russia was smashed to bits in the beginning, only her massive size, shitty roads, and freezing winter save Stalins sorry ass from being hung inside the Kremlin by German troops
youngsamurai88 2 years ago 6
@youngsamurai88 Actually youre referring to common misconceptions about Soviet military. In 1941 the USSR had arguably the strongest military in the world with a huge standing army, more and better tanks than the rest of the world combined, an experienced and powerful airforce, and good weapons. Soviet defeats in the early days of the war was more due to Stalin's stupidity and disbelief in the possibility of a German offensive as early as June 1941. They were unprepared. Read Moscow 1941.
njchampnj 1 year ago
@njchampnj The germans had better tanks at the start and better planes at the start. The russians just had way more of everything until the T34 tank came along.
jimmy27paul 1 year ago
@njchampnj Uh, not really. The Red Army was still reeling from the Purges in 1941, and although it had a huge army, much of its equipment was initially outdated. But you are half-right, by the end of the war the Red Army was the largest army in history, possessing more tanks and artillery, and experienced soldiers, commanders, and staff than all other participant forces combined.
Scrinoverlord 11 months ago
@Scrinoverlord Can you name a russian commander with true military credentials who was executed? Purges of 1937-41 mostly got rid of a hundreds of incompetent henchmen who made their careers on suppressing anti-bolshevik peasant uprisings and mass executions. About "outdated equipment". Please compare a Soviet BT, T-26 or T-35 with the British "tanks" shown in this video. Let alone 2000+ T34s that Kremlin had by 1941. Do you believe in magic? red army "suddenly" became powerful?
silver610310 11 months ago
@silver610310 Thing is, can you name a competent SU commander that replaced any of those "incompetent henchmen"? 75% of the officer corps in 1941 had held their post for less than a year, full of young, inexperienced yes-men. No, it's pretty obvious that though much of the SU officer corps before the Purge wasn't all-around great, their replacements were equally or more horrible, as evidently seen in the Winter War.
Scrinoverlord 11 months ago
@Scrinoverlord Shaposhnikov, Vasilevsky, Vautin, Vlasov, Metretzkov, Koniev, Petrov, Bagramian, Rodimtzev... the list goes on. These are the generals that won the war. I wouldn't put Zhukov of Eremenko on that list because they were kinda dumb, but even they were quite capable, and definitely as neurotic as, say Guderian. The winter war was a smash (in the actual meaning) success because not a single army before or after was able to smash through such a well prepared defensive line.
silver610310 11 months ago
@silver610310
Comparing SU tanks to BR tanks is irrelevant, as the two sides never fought each other in the war. Fact is, while the SU had a 4:1 ratio in tank numbers, and the T-34 and KV units were the most modern in the world, they made up very little of the Soviet tank force in June 1941. Alongside that, they lacked the communications, training and experience to use such weapons in an effective manner in the first year of the invasion.
Scrinoverlord 11 months ago
@Scrinoverlord why can't we compare BR and SU tanks? Just look at the specs and compare, easiest thing! In 41, the soviet tank force was decimated because of the sudden and brilliant attack that wiped out the Red air force by Jun 23. WIthout knowing where the German tanks were, the SU tanks didn't have a chance to engage the German spearheads, and the Germans were not stupid to fight the superior T34s head-on. There were 2000 T34s in June41. "small fraction" but huge absolute number.
silver610310 11 months ago
@silver610310 And the Axis had 5,200 tanks overall in the initial invasion, all of which was superior to the majority of the tank forces the Soviets had at that time in training, preparedness, equipment, and morale. Therefore it wasn't a matter of the Germans not engaging the T-34s head on, as they did multiple times and blew them out of the water. But this is, again, in the initial weeks of the war, not for the entire duration of the Eastern Front.
Scrinoverlord 11 months ago
@Scrinoverlord If USSR attacked on June 21, the effect on the other side would be the same: panic, losses, retreat, and one problem over another - like fuel lost to the advancing enemy. As you know, out of 5000 german tanks only about 500 were Parzer IV, the rest were light assorted tanks including French, English and Czech. USSR had up to 25000. In head-on fight, Germans had no chance. Just read a wiki article about KV2 tanks for example, if you don't believe me...
silver610310 11 months ago
@silver610310 So according to you, technology decides a war? I don't think so. No, the Red Army was at a severe disadvantage in 1941: incompetent officers, partial lack of equipment, insufficient motorized logistical support, and poor training. An invasion of Europe by the USSR on June 21 would lead to a strategic failure.
Scrinoverlord 11 months ago
@Scrinoverlord Yes, I think technology is the most decisive factor. What else? War spirit, kamikaze style? Trained personnel is a part of technology. Military schools and academies, literate soldiers. And of course, courage and dedication
Lets assume you are right. Red Army 1941: "incompetent officers, partial lack of equipment, insufficient .. logistical support, and poor training". Result: USSR loses ~20,000 tanks, 3,000,000 soldiers and 2/3 of industry and agriculture, right? Next post pls..
silver610310 11 months ago
@Scrinoverlord Then in 1944/45, a technically superior, overwhelming in numbers of tanks, planes, artillery and everything else including "competence" enteried The Reich. Red Army 1944 = Might and Power.
So: 1941 Red Army BAD; 1944 - GOOD. BAD minus 3 mln men, minus 20,000 tanks, minus factories in occupied territory becomes GOOD. BAD minus X = GOOD. This math is not working.
Explanation: in 1941, Red Army wasn't "bad". Those "incompetent officers" beat Hitler.
silver610310 11 months ago
@Scrinoverlord Those "incompetent officers" were more competent than those they beat, that is, German officers. OK, assume all the dumb russians were killed in 41. It was the new ones who beat the Germans! Those who just got out of the high school were more competent than the german veterans... This is absurd. Hence, the "incompetence of red army officers" is absurd, BS. As is the lack of equipment, etc. Who had it in 1940-41? French? Germans? Brits? US? give me a break...
silver610310 11 months ago
@silver610310 Tukachevsky, Bluykher (especially Bluykher, as he led a successful and brilliant campaign against Chinese warlords in the 1929 Sino-Soviet conflict), and Yegorov to name a few competent Soviet commanders purged. And you say the majority of those purged only got their titles from suppressing Whites, yet the majority of names you listed also got many of their credentials from the Russian Civil War at one point or another.
Scrinoverlord 11 months ago
@Scrinoverlord Those "Chineese warlords" were probably peasants resisting expropriation of their harvest. Could have been groups of remaining Whites. Regardless, Blukher's experience in exterminating those already defeated and poorly armed small groups is unlikely to have helped him is stopping German armored divisions. He was a drunk and a womanizer. Blukher was shot, so without him was there a problem in the Far East? To the contrary, Japan was beaten in 1939 and never came back.
silver610310 11 months ago
@Scrinoverlord A well-known detail about Blukher is that he was one of the executioners of Tukhacheveky. B. was good at that. He lacked special military education, and was himself, in fact, a warlord who happened to side with the Reds. Red army absorbed a lot of big and small gangs. Many of their commanders were purged. Yes, it is well known that a lot of former white officers, educated and talented were executed, but their numbers are not as high as the common literature cites.
silver610310 11 months ago
@njchampnj You are absolutely correct about the strength of the Red Army, which is very rare. Most people are brainwashed into the misconception that it was "weak". I would not call Stalin exactly "stupid" though. This is miscalculation, not stupidity. Unless we believe that he take a magic pill to become "smart" afterwards. Ironically, Western Europe has to thank god for this "stupidity", otherwise it could be "liberated" by Stalin along with Berlin.
silver610310 11 months ago
@silver610310 You are correct. Strategic mistake would be a more accurate categorization of Stalin's decisions in the spring of 1941. Stalin selectively ignored intelligence reports of a massive German offensive planned in the summer of 1941. He believed, not so irrationally, that such reports were the results of British intelligence services attempting ignite tensions and draw the USSR into the war on the Allied side. However, such a conclusion was misguided and almost cost the USSR dearly.
njchampnj 11 months ago
@njchampnj russia had more materials and men. but the army had little or no training... the generals wwere out classed on the ground... the only thing stalin did wrong was not giving the order of retreat.... thats why the germans took so many pows that first summer.. the reason the gemans lost the war is british and americans broke the german code.. you cant be outnumbered and have the enemy know where ur going to attack..
caneman75 4 months ago
@njchampnj Haha, good equipment! I am guessing those T-35 and T-26s were actually "great tanks" hm? You're living in a fantasy. If was the French who fought the hardest with obsolete tactics. If they had used Wolf-Pack tactics, like the Germans, they would've marched through Berlin within a month. Soviet hardware was very sad. There are even accounts of how horribly trained their tank commanders were/hence how hard it was to repair broken down equipment!
Tyco200 4 months ago
@njchampnj Besides, Stalin, the idiot of all idiots, was too busy having his field marshals executed, and one of the finest of all men beaten to bloody hell (Truvachesky), who could have saved the weak and pathetic Russia. He had well though tactics, but Stalin was too busy beating him to force him into stating how he was "A Nazi!" Sure. Poor socialists. That's how they fail.
Tyco200 4 months ago
@youngsamurai88 Good job reciting biased textbooks and propaganda. The idea that Hitler "almost defeated" the weak and dumb Stalin is liked by everyone. By Goebbels to encourage the Germans to knock themselves out. By Communists to excuse for the f-up in 1941 and present themselves as innocent victims. Churchill and Roosevelt to explain why they supported Communism and betrayed Eastern and Central Europe. And by you - to feel superior to the Red Army reservists who smashed elite SS divisions.
silver610310 11 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow, I got a lot of "thumbs down" for telling the truth. Must have been frenchmen...
randy95023 2 years ago
Everyone,s an expert now! pity you wern,t around at the time, we might all be living in peace by now, - nothing,s changed and never will , people like to kill and maim others, it,s allso good for buisness.
seyeguor 2 years ago
I think the video is longer than it took the Germans to roll over France.LOL
8189michael 2 years ago 7
No. The video is longer than it took the Germans to rout the US army at Kasserine Pass on their 1st encounter in 1943. Please tell us about the outstanding military bravery of your country in 1940. Doing good business as usual, hey?
Fridomfry 2 years ago 2
Ive already spotted two problems with this film. In the first part they said the Polish airforce was destroyed during the first day of action and thats not true. Polish planes kept flying until they had no more runways to fly from. And in this 2nd part they failed to say anything about how heavy the German naval losses were in the Norway battle.
32silvercoins 3 years ago
The said the MAJORITY of the polish airforce was destroyed. NOT all the airforce completely.
AU42Assassin 3 years ago 2
Most Polish planes destroyed on the first day were old trainers and some scout planes. Nearly all of the fighters and bombers had been moved to remote airstrips to avoid being caught on the ground.
32silvercoins 3 years ago
That's what "majority" means, MOST but not ALL.
Zeroh101 2 years ago
Yeah is this guy like stupid and don't forget different countries tell wars differently for instance my textbook for social studies says Austria broke free from Germany in WWII you joined them willingly ffs!
Lurtz0886 2 years ago
This guy is clouded by the "factual" books he's reading. Maybe someday he will realize none of what you hear (or read) and only half of what you see is real and I don't even think that rule works any more. Don't believe anything unless you see it for yourself IN PERSON.
8189michael 2 years ago 2
It's become a similar cliché, that the French airforce was destroyed on its airfields during the first day of battle in May 1940. Actually most French aircraft fought fiercely during the 5 weeks of battle. I guess this cliché is based on German propaganda, and is reinforced by the final defeat of Poland and France.
Fridomfry 3 years ago
Poland lasted just 1 week less then France and yet its armys were much smaller. I think that shows how hard the Poles fought. They also gave the Germans one hell of a bloody nose.
32silvercoins 3 years ago 3
and they cut off by the soviets too
USCTrojansOwn 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Polish fought hard and compared to the French they REALLY made the Germans pay. The French basically didn't have any heart for the fight and were defeatist from day one. The Poles should be quite proud, the French... Quite ashamed.
randy95023 2 years ago
The Poles could have fought for longer but the Russians came in the back door and sealed there fate.
32silvercoins 2 years ago
As usual after a defeat, each ally blames the others Poles, French, British, Belgians Actually the French suffered 100,000 casualties, and shot down some 1,000 German aircraft. What was really shameful was the Generals' outdated knowledge of war. Anyway none on the continent had any chance to win against Nazi Germany allied with the communists. Britain was saved mainly because Hitler had just no plan to invade it until July 1940.
Fridomfry 2 years ago 3
Britain was saved because she defended her own airspace!forestalling any invasion attempt, also Hitler after his luftwaffes failed attempt at knocking out the raf!should of listened to his staff who were all for fighting Britain and the commenwealth on the african continent! this was where they felt the decisive blow could be made against the British Empire and if Britain were defeated?this may of delayed Americas entry into the european theater of war fullstop?its just a thought!!?
redriot74 2 years ago
Not true the sissy French tucked tailed and ran like the pussies they are
gopconservative78 2 years ago
French partisans were a major contributor to the success of the Normandy landings. You're an incredible moron.
guysmiley00 2 years ago
Hi mate, the common misconception the French ACTIVE and MODERN aircrafts and pilots was significantly reduced on the first day. This was due to heavy Luftwaffe attacks on airbases, and fighter sorties. The reserve and second line units were pulled up at this point and continued on but the best french pilots were dead.
Zeroh101 2 years ago
Zeroh, on May 10th, the Luftwaffe attacked 47 aerodromes, destroyed some 60 French aircrafts, and lost 323 of its own aircrafts. I was certainly a blow to the French AF, yet surely not the destruction of their active elite. They continued fighting until the armistice, and many of the survivors made it to North Africa or to England.
Fridomfry 2 years ago 2
Intriguing, may I have the link?
Zeroh101 2 years ago
A link ? I have these informations from several books, particularly the best overview on the French Air Force in 1939-1940: P. Facon, L'Armee de l'Air dans la Tourmente" (a balanced analysis by a professional historian), and J. Gisclon, "Les 1,000 Victoires de la Chasse Française" (a day-by-day account of air fights, by a veteran of the Lafayette squadron).
Fridomfry 2 years ago 3
technically heavy naval losses can be the loss of 6 Battleships and 10 Destroyers and you can destroy an air force by destroying their available runways its really not that hard
Lurtz0886 2 years ago
@32silvercoins I would just like to pay tribute to the Polish pilots who defended Britain. I read somewhere (sorry, forgot) that they killed twice as much german planes per pilot as compared to british units. They must have been some crazy mother...kers! Honestly, I don't know how many they were. 50? 500? Anyone knows? So, Polish airforce went on without Poland
Also, don't forget that Poland caved in faster because it was stabbed in the back by the USSR. While Br and Fr watched.
silver610310 11 months ago
Germans hmm... they whas strong but not too strong>! the britains what the sea kings russians whas hmm.... dont know... Alied's whas the best the tock Ivojima that whas the bloodies place!
skralthaug 3 years ago
skral, you apparently have a Westernized view of WW2. Iwo Jima was bloody, but so was Okinawa. Stalingrad was the single bloodiest battle, and the Russians were the key to Allied victory. Had the Nazis not invaded the Soviets and visa versa, the Allies would've been screwed to say the least. Britain was the sea king, due to gross negligence of German navy. However, even Britain was stretched with combat in 3 major areas. Also, please spell correctly.
carmen510 3 years ago 2
yeah if Hitler had waited to invade Russia Germany probably would have conquered Britain, the Middle East and probably most if not all of Russia and then we probably would all be doing the Nazi Salute and all that other stuff
Lurtz0886 3 years ago
Have you ever read a book? Germany, led by this sick son-of-a-bitch Hitler didn't have
any chance (thank God) to win this bloody war!
The generals of the Wehrmacht were maybe able
but this fucking Hitler did so many mistakes.
Military Hitler was an illiterate!!!!!
wrexham56 3 years ago
yeah buddy Hitler had many chances to win the war if he had destroyed the BEF during the Dunkirk incident Britain would have been unable to fight for a few years and the RAF was on the brink of defeat during the Battle of Britain even the British admit to it so you should go read a book because it had the BEST military in the world during WWII
Lurtz0886 3 years ago
What are you talking about: "the best military in the world during WWII"? They were the best by killing innocent people! Sorry, but you have not an inch of an idea what "people" like Hitler, Himmler, Heydrich,
Goebbels, Göring and so on were! They were all war criminals and first of all cowardly murderers!!
wrexham56 3 years ago
I'm not talking about the Nazis talking about the Wehrmacht I hate the Nazis I'm a freaking Jew so don't give me any crap about me not knowing what I'm talking about because I probably know more about WWII than you do
Lurtz0886 3 years ago
In other words: you're distinguishing between the Nazis and the Wehrmacht. What a significant difference!!! Can you tell me what is to be understand with "freaking" jew?
wrexham56 3 years ago
wrexham, lurtz is right
nazis were diferent
and the germans were the best armed and traind. srry for it, its just how it was.
im glad im not speaking german today
conioswa 3 years ago
Yes. There is. Many Wehrmacht commanders had no idea of the atrocities being committed. Remember the SS Waffen largely ran the concentration/slaughter camps. Take a look at commanders like Rommel, and also try to know what the hell you're talking about in the future.
archerman610 2 years ago
There was a Wehrmacht officer who tried to save jews by getting them out of a walled city onto trucks, but the SS guards stopped him, so he went and grabbed Wehrmacht troops and they almost fought, but the SS troops surrendered and let him take the jews and so he saved them.
Finchy000 2 years ago
Germany tried and failed to destroy the BEF at Dunkirk, due to the actions of the RAF. They later failed to destroy the RAF, not only due to the switch of attack focus from airbases to London, but also because the Luftwaffe suffered much heavier casualties than the Royals because they were fighting over enemy territory. Britain was saved by British valour, not German incompetence.
guysmiley00 2 years ago
Don't forget about the fact that the German plains weren't meant to be used to fight dogfights they were built to support the ground battles also Hitler ordered a permanent halt at Dunkirk which gave the British time to evacuate more and more troops
Lurtz0886 2 years ago
Right. You may add that, in May-June 1940, the French Air Force shot down some 1,000 German airplanes and captured 700 German airmen. This was a serious attrition of the German airpower, which certainly contributed to Hitler's unability to invade Britain early in the summer, and gave the RAF time to build up.
Fridomfry 2 years ago
The BEF was at Hitler's mercy, he could 've detroyed it but he decided not to still hoping to make peace with the British. The pig churchill of course did not appreciate this act. LEARN HISTORY. The RAF suffered high casualties during the battle of FRance . The Luftwaffe had total air superiority.
legionarstefan 2 years ago
Yeah, I guess he should have joined up with Hitler, cause Hitler & the Nazis were such nice people. Whose books have you been reading, Pat Buchanan's?
jakefree25 2 years ago
@jakefree25 Aha, and since Hitler wasn't so nice, Churchill decided to be friends with Stalin, who was such a kind and gentle bloke. They had a lot of fun drinking wine in Tehran and Yalta, divided Europe and helped Communists to build their mighty military.
silver610310 11 months ago
Germany tried and failed to destroy the BEF at Dunkirk, due to the actions of the French army who protected the Brit's rear. If Hitler had the nerve, he could have easily mounted an amphibiouis invasion & utterly swamped Britain since the British had so few troops, guns, tanks & even rifles and MGs left after they ran out of France.
jakefree25 2 years ago
As far as I know, Hitler refused the attack on the escaping forces, still hoping that Britain would ally with him. The forces would have been an easy target for the Luftwaffe, even without a ground assault.
aaKonda 2 years ago
The Luftwaffe inflicted serious damage on both the army and the ships there as well as the army did keep up pressure on the Brits. But most of the German army was re-organizing for the final push through southern France.
jakefree25 2 years ago
You must be joking - what possible evidence is there that Hitler considered allying with Britain after the fall of France? Even before the capture of Paris, the best Hitler seems to have hoped for was a British acceptance of German conquests on the continent - he never thought the UK would join him as an ally.
guysmiley00 2 years ago
Hitler never wanted a 2 front war, and why did he give the halt order in Dunkerque has been a matter of debate, one of the theories which exist is that he wanted to make diplomatic peace with Britain before invading to USSR.
Very few Nazis actually wanted war with britain, Rudolf Hess tried to fly to Britain to disucuss peace, but was arrested. Altough this was done without Hitlers direct acceptance.
aaKonda 2 years ago 3
I support your argument. I just said the same thing to jimmy27. If you read some of Hitler's personal conversations among his members, You read about him holding the British in VERY high regaurds. It is therefore my STRONG opinion that you and I are very much correct.
N2513Yat 2 years ago
A very true comment. But as always I think the French are being marginalized. Hitler had a high regard for the British from his own experiences in ww1. There is NO question that the French were THE winners of that war, despite what Hollywood might make you think. Attacking France made sense to him in using the new strategy yield it's most while it was still new. Had he attacked Russia first he might have advanced to the Urals but no further, and still have a now wiser France to the west.
lektrum 2 years ago
@lektrum Oh man.... "advanced to Urals". Driving what? Wearing what? Eating what?
Even having spent entire year producing his tanks and other weapons, pumping their muscles and stockpiling French cheese and wine, even having the huge element of surprise on its size, having the benefit of complete air superiority, the Wermacht got bogged down east of Moscow and couldn't reach a single objective of the Operation Barbarossa. Urals is another 1,500 miles east!
silver610310 11 months ago
@guysmiley00 such an evidence might not exist because it could have only been inside the Hitler's skull, his and few of his top brass. Same on the british side. Who wants the people to know the truth? A lot of history is not documented. Some documents might have existed but then been destroyed. Suppose Oswald was working for CIA (or KGB), do we expect to have a memo in some archive? What do we know about true Bush's reasons of Iraq war? WMDs, right?
silver610310 11 months ago
Comment removed
guysmiley00 2 years ago
I'll have to disagree with you on the possibility of a German invasion of Britain at that time - the Royal Navy still ruled the seas, imposing a punishing blockade on Germany, and the RAF still prevented the Luftwaffe from ruling the skies.
guysmiley00 2 years ago
The Germans could've used their navy and airforce to establish a safe & wide enough corridor across the Channel to land enough troops to establish a beachhead, then build airfields, The only good planes the Brits had then were fighters but most them had only .303 machine guns, useless against armor or entrenchments. The UK bombers & bombs, 250lb max, proved useless against the German in France.The Germans shot most of them down with FLAK. The UK had very few tanks, guns or even submachine guns
jakefree25 2 years ago
The Grmans had a FAR inferior navy, in NO way able to support an invasion. The Hurricanes and Spitfires were pretty much equal to the German fighters of the day, but fuel loimitations on operational capacity was the major advantage for the British. It was a close cal for a while, but in the end it went as it did, noty only to Göring's follies, but also to logistics, which since 1915 was being held as the crux of generalship, in which the nazies didn't reallt excel due to political circumstance.
lektrum 2 years ago
@lektrum They could have used their uboats, airforce and smaller ships to seal off a corridor in the Channel.The British had good fighters but lacked any decent bombers which was not a Luftwaffe problem. So if they went for a mass airborne attack coupled with the corridor across the channel. they could have secured a toehold on GB to grab airfields to bring in more reinforcements & firepower. Even 2 whole Nazi divisions would have swamped the available army the Brits had in the UK in '40
jakefree25 2 years ago
@jakefree25 Well maybe. But armies are not just soldiers.
In WWII for every 1 frontline soldier there were 17 supplying them. German admirals understood quite well that resupply across the channel was precarious at best. This is shown abundantly in the supply challenge the Allies had in 44. And resupply by air would have failed simply by the events in the Battle of Britain. The Germans could not take Britain in 1940.
OneWorldHistory 1 year ago
@OneWorldHistory I think you are right. Germans also could not defeat Russia, and would not have been able to hold on to Poland. WW2 is an example of misunderstanding of simplest strategic dogmas. Otto Bismarck saw this in the 19th century and warned Germany from a war on two fronts, or from war on one front if that front was with Russia.
silver610310 11 months ago
@jakefree25 cont,
And the German professionals knew they could not take Britain in '40. Goering could spout and fume, but the core German General Staff were aware it was a bluff after the failure of Goering's knocking out the RAF. Hitler undoubtably was aware of this as well, hence his lunacy, dependant on continued victory and well explained in Mein Kamph, began to look east.
OneWorldHistory 1 year ago
@OneWorldHistory Actually, it was the massing of large Soviet forces that, cannot be described as defensive, across the German-Soviet "border" inside conquered Poland that was the primary factor for Germany's preemptive strike in 1941. They didn't want to go to war then - they knew war was inevitable, but they didn't want to go to war just then because they simply weren't ready. See the research done by former GPU officer Viktor Suvorov.
PelleDenLate 1 year ago
@jakefree25 If that would have happened, Stalin would have whacked Hitler in the back with all the might of then intact Red Army. This would have been 1945 but with millions more soldiers and thousands more tanks pouring into Germany and Romania's oil fields. Hitler figured this out and tried to save the situation by his preemptive attack on the USSR in summer 1941. As a result, he prolonged his life for almost four more years.
silver610310 11 months ago
@jakefree25 What? Germany didn't have the airforce to conduct a large-scale airborne attack. And if they could have "sealed off" a corridor for an amphibious landing, then why didn't they?
Germany didn't have the surface fleet to pull it off. They'd lost most of what they did have invading Norway. Even without the Royal Navy, Germany didn't have the ships to bring an army across the Channel. And the Nazis would still have to deal with all the Imperial troops in the UK. You're way off, here.
guysmiley00 11 months ago
@jakefree25 You're incredibly wrong about the British airforce. The Germans were the ones with the bomber deficit, as they thought the airforce should be used to support the army, and therefore focused on tactical bombers. The British doctrine called for strategic bombers, and so they had plenty of heavies just perfect for tearing a concentrated amphibious invasion fleet to bits.
guysmiley00 11 months ago
@guysmiley00 these bombers didn't help Britain to protect Norway or Crete. I think heavy bombers don't work against invading army, is there a single example of that? To the contrary, Stuka's proved effective in stopping soviet tanks.
silver610310 11 months ago
@silver610310 I don't think either of your comparisons are good analogies for a German invasion of Britain. The Norweigan invasion force was largely landed by the time the Brits knew what was going on (they were sure the Germans were trying to break out into the Atlantic) - not likely during Sealion. Crete is, if anything, a demonstration of how air power dominates sea power - and the British didn't have any real bomber presence in that area anyway. Again, wouldn't happen during Sealion.
guysmiley00 11 months ago
@silver610310 I would also note the heavy use of bombers in the Allied breakout from Normandy. Stukas were indeed effective against individual armored units, but couldn't do much to stop the Red Army on a larger scale. It's a question of tactical v. strategic use of air power, and I think that the history of war after WW2 has demonstrated the power of heavy bombers against both production and actual ground forces. There's a reason those B-52s are still flying.
guysmiley00 11 months ago
@guysmiley00 strategic bombing IN WW2 is overrated. Nazis were increasing military production through 1944; it was the loss of land to allies that caused the reduction in 1945. Having said all that, I don't deny that SeaLion would be unsuccessful. I think it was more likely to succeed than Barbarossa if taken out of context of other fronts. Sea Lion would fail mainly because Germany would have to open its eastern front to Stalin, who would not sit wait with land invasion as Allies did in 39/40
silver610310 11 months ago
@silver610310 Well its a halftrue. Yes under Speers command,Thirrd Reich economy rised up production, but... They have all industrialized Europe under their command! After all their production was still only part of what GB USA and SSSR produced.
MrLasicak 11 months ago
@MrLasicak Bomber offenizive reduced german ability to increase their production, outrun them of fuel, and what was most important, cut their suply lines. German economy was paralyzed . And dont forget, bomber offenzive started in 1943 in 1944 it was on its top and at the end of 44 and spring 45 it brought its "fruits"
MrLasicak 11 months ago
@guysmiley00 You are right, but Bismarck was sunk on may 27th (a couple of days after the Durnkirk), and until this happened and possibly after, the germans had the illusion that they could win that part of the war too. The top Nazis were talented in some respects, but they were not too bright in the arena of international diplomacy and possibly geography too.
silver610310 11 months ago
@silver610310 The Dunkirk evacuation occurred in 1940; the Bismarck was sunk in 1941. Still, I don't think she played a role in German naval considerations at Dunkirk, as she wasn't commissioned until August of '40, well after the end of Operation Dynamo in 03 June 1940.
guysmiley00 11 months ago
@guysmiley00 U-o-ps, you're right, I was wrong by a year. I thought the ambitious activity of Bismarck showed that the Germans were pretty cocky about their growing naval power. History showed that they overestimated themselves at sea just they did on land or in the air, but the initial success in sinking the best British ship in five minutes could be viewed as Yamamoto's success in Perl Harbor or the beginning of Barbarossa.
silver610310 11 months ago
Its amazing that sadly some americans believe british propaganda and bullshit too.Hitler let them escape holding back for 3 crucial days only the lufwaffe was fighting them in that time.And hitler was certainly not afraid of britain why would he be.
jimmy27paul 2 years ago
Don't forget, both the high command & Hitler were nervous about the condition of the armored spearhead. Most of France was still unconquered as well as the French army was still largely intact. The low areas around Dunkirk are too wet for those older tanks to operate effectively too. So holding the tanks back then using the infantry & air power made sense.
jakefree25 2 years ago
Please. the area around Dunkirk to wet? Maybe so, but they were just a few kilometre away. A concentrated attack, with or without tanks would have put them in a very precarious position. After Dunkirk the french army was far from largely intact. It lost the bulk of their most mobile and battleworthy dvisions with it.
lucius1976 2 years ago