@0tkagon, Albert Speer / Total war footing. It's amazing, I think the "strategic" carpet bombing had more of an effect on German morale & civilian death than actually limiting arms production.
For those of you who say that British/American massive bombing of Germany greatly contributed to the allied victory explain just one the fact: why was the Third Reich able to increase its millitary production throughout the war, peaking production in october of 1944?
@communipaw2009 In fact the Americans were far enough East to be in position to attack Berlin alone or with the Soviets. But the Soviets wanted that honour for themselves. Eisenhower knew it was bound to be a bloody battle and the future of Berlin had already be decided, divided but within the Soviet occupation zone, Eisenhower decided to let them get on with it, which saved tens of thousands of American lives.
im black and i no for a fact these people would not like me but i got to say the germans would have won the war if they would not had attack russia we no russia really the war they were in berlin way before america got 1/4 into germany
@Fridomfry the western allies only did air raids at night and ruissa was in berlin way befor western allies got there and did all the air raids during the day
@communipaw2009. Wrong. From 1943, the western allies did air raids "round the clock": The British at night at low altitude, the USAAF in daytime at high altitude, compelling the Germans to keep considerable troops and equipment away from the fronts. This, added to the destructions, was a great relief for all allies on the fronts, including the Russians.
@Fridomfry Yes, but it is important to note that the real damage was done by the german's own divergence of 1/4th of the resources to aerial defense unnecessarily to air defense. the effects of allied bombing were actually quite limited.
@Fridomfry After 1940 the industry of all countries of the Europe worked to Germany. As from the countries of the Europe in the German army soldiers going on east front acted.
I guess that depends on how the German army would have fared in the defense.
However, if Germany had already been stopped at France, it would have most likely never attacked the Soviet Union, Italy would have never joined its side and therefore it wouldn't have been forced to fight in North Africa or the Balkans either.
So, depending on whether the Soviets would've attacked Germany as a target of opportunity or not, it would have remained a Franco/British-German war, and not a World War.
Interesting and well approached answer, thanks! yeah, I think we would have ended up more with a WWI-like scenario. That is, a war of positions on the western front with the Nazi-Soviet pact still unbroken on the eastern front, but then as far as the end of the war is concerned, it all depends on the point until which the German army was ready to defend itself...
@Schuultz as long as stalin would have been alive, there wouldnt be a soviet attack. He thought even after german forces crossed the demarkation line in poland that germany was a friend and no foe...
the 3rd reich would have achieved victory on the field of battle due to the lack of british hightech weapons, they were equipped the same "tools" they used in ww1, the defeat from dunkirk forced them to rethink their technologies etc.
there is a book called "what if" published by Robert Cowley...
Interesting argument. However, Stalin's unwillingness to face the facts was based more in his belief that he had figured Hitler out rather than some form of trust.
Stalin was highly suspicious of everyone. He believed Hitler would be too smart to open up another front, that's why he couldn't believe it when it happened.
It is also generally accepted that when the Germans crossed into Soviet territory, they overran the Red Army while it prepared itself for invading Germany.
There is no other reason why there would have been these huge numbers of Soviet armies at the border otherwise (especially if Stalin trusted Hitler).
The problem was that the Red Army had lost all its experienced officers in the Great Purges, and the green replacements couldn't handle the German Blitzkrieg/Combined Arms tactics.
@Schuultz Firstly, in peace or war the Red Army was always enormous. Secondly, that Stalin knew war with Germany was inevitable is clear. Thirdly, the documentation shows absolutely that in mid 1941 Stalin HAD NO INTENTION to attack Germany. On the contrary, his entire effort was to keep Hitler contented with his efforts to serve the German war machine. The USSR was behaving like a satellite state. Your version reflects German propaganda at the time.
@Schuultz It was clear to everyone in 1941 that the USA was bankrolling the UK, and that Hitler's strategy was not working. I think Hitler thought (1) that given the lull in the fighting, now was a convenient time to finish off the USSr. (2) In view of their debacle in Finland the Red Army would be easily defeated. (3) The western capitalist powers would be grateful to him polishing off the communist threat. It was then by no means clear that these calculations wd be mistaken.
Thanks for this documents. Actually, when the panzers struck through the Ardennes Forest and crossed the Meuse, the French defenders didn't "panick", on the contrary: They waited calmly for a 1917-style methodical offensive, to open fire only when the enemy had revealed his intentions and arrived at short range. Meanwhile, the Panzers had already pierced the French line and, more serious, the Stuka were bombing the French artillery.
@0tkagon, Albert Speer / Total war footing. It's amazing, I think the "strategic" carpet bombing had more of an effect on German morale & civilian death than actually limiting arms production.
dandyjimbuckley 5 months ago
@dandyjimbuckley in frame 1:46 you can see Hitlers Face , in the clouds...top left...strange..lol!
NishHammer 4 months ago
For those of you who say that British/American massive bombing of Germany greatly contributed to the allied victory explain just one the fact: why was the Third Reich able to increase its millitary production throughout the war, peaking production in october of 1944?
0ktagon 6 months ago
@0ktagon
Speer himself said it caused production problems, and they produced much less than they had projected, and attributed this to allied bombing.
klesks8686 1 month ago
The French should have listened to Napoleon. "The static defense is equivalent to military suicide."
UserUK201 10 months ago
@communipaw2009 In fact the Americans were far enough East to be in position to attack Berlin alone or with the Soviets. But the Soviets wanted that honour for themselves. Eisenhower knew it was bound to be a bloody battle and the future of Berlin had already be decided, divided but within the Soviet occupation zone, Eisenhower decided to let them get on with it, which saved tens of thousands of American lives.
mc0558 1 year ago
im black and i no for a fact these people would not like me but i got to say the germans would have won the war if they would not had attack russia we no russia really the war they were in berlin way before america got 1/4 into germany
communipaw2009 1 year ago
@communipaw2009, sure the USSR took the bulk of the fighting after 1941, and accounted for 2/3rds of German losses. Yet remember also that:
- Until 1941 the USSR supplied Germany with all the raw material and oil which allowed the German war machine to beat western European democracies.
- then the USSR might have fallen, had it not received massive supplies of equipment from Britain and the US.
- the devastating air raids over Germany were entirely made by the Western allies.
Fridomfry 1 year ago
@Fridomfry the western allies only did air raids at night and ruissa was in berlin way befor western allies got there and did all the air raids during the day
communipaw2009 1 year ago
@communipaw2009. Wrong. From 1943, the western allies did air raids "round the clock": The British at night at low altitude, the USAAF in daytime at high altitude, compelling the Germans to keep considerable troops and equipment away from the fronts. This, added to the destructions, was a great relief for all allies on the fronts, including the Russians.
Fridomfry 1 year ago
@Fridomfry Yes, but it is important to note that the real damage was done by the german's own divergence of 1/4th of the resources to aerial defense unnecessarily to air defense. the effects of allied bombing were actually quite limited.
UserUK201 10 months ago
@Fridomfry After 1940 the industry of all countries of the Europe worked to Germany. As from the countries of the Europe in the German army soldiers going on east front acted.
Vanyaaynav 6 months ago in playlist World War 2
Why didnt the extend the line through to the coast between france and belgium?
prometheusz 1 year ago
I always wonder. If France hadn't got occupied at that time, would WWII stll have seemed so thrilling and dramatic?
audifaxcimeski 2 years ago
I guess that depends on how the German army would have fared in the defense.
However, if Germany had already been stopped at France, it would have most likely never attacked the Soviet Union, Italy would have never joined its side and therefore it wouldn't have been forced to fight in North Africa or the Balkans either.
So, depending on whether the Soviets would've attacked Germany as a target of opportunity or not, it would have remained a Franco/British-German war, and not a World War.
Schuultz 2 years ago
Interesting and well approached answer, thanks! yeah, I think we would have ended up more with a WWI-like scenario. That is, a war of positions on the western front with the Nazi-Soviet pact still unbroken on the eastern front, but then as far as the end of the war is concerned, it all depends on the point until which the German army was ready to defend itself...
audifaxcimeski 2 years ago
@Schuultz as long as stalin would have been alive, there wouldnt be a soviet attack. He thought even after german forces crossed the demarkation line in poland that germany was a friend and no foe...
the 3rd reich would have achieved victory on the field of battle due to the lack of british hightech weapons, they were equipped the same "tools" they used in ww1, the defeat from dunkirk forced them to rethink their technologies etc.
there is a book called "what if" published by Robert Cowley...
DanteFlint 2 years ago
@DanteFlint
Interesting argument. However, Stalin's unwillingness to face the facts was based more in his belief that he had figured Hitler out rather than some form of trust.
Stalin was highly suspicious of everyone. He believed Hitler would be too smart to open up another front, that's why he couldn't believe it when it happened.
Schuultz 2 years ago
[continued]
It is also generally accepted that when the Germans crossed into Soviet territory, they overran the Red Army while it prepared itself for invading Germany.
There is no other reason why there would have been these huge numbers of Soviet armies at the border otherwise (especially if Stalin trusted Hitler).
The problem was that the Red Army had lost all its experienced officers in the Great Purges, and the green replacements couldn't handle the German Blitzkrieg/Combined Arms tactics.
Schuultz 2 years ago
i totally sign this
DanteFlint 2 years ago
@Schuultz Firstly, in peace or war the Red Army was always enormous. Secondly, that Stalin knew war with Germany was inevitable is clear. Thirdly, the documentation shows absolutely that in mid 1941 Stalin HAD NO INTENTION to attack Germany. On the contrary, his entire effort was to keep Hitler contented with his efforts to serve the German war machine. The USSR was behaving like a satellite state. Your version reflects German propaganda at the time.
mc0558 1 year ago
@Schuultz It was clear to everyone in 1941 that the USA was bankrolling the UK, and that Hitler's strategy was not working. I think Hitler thought (1) that given the lull in the fighting, now was a convenient time to finish off the USSr. (2) In view of their debacle in Finland the Red Army would be easily defeated. (3) The western capitalist powers would be grateful to him polishing off the communist threat. It was then by no means clear that these calculations wd be mistaken.
mc0558 1 year ago
"thrilling and dramatic?"
Was it?
chris2002Rocklin 2 years ago
@chris2002Rocklin Definitly not, it was only an incident
audifaxcimeski 2 years ago
all of these vids are great so far thanks
JUNGLEOFEDEN 2 years ago 5
Thanks for this documents. Actually, when the panzers struck through the Ardennes Forest and crossed the Meuse, the French defenders didn't "panick", on the contrary: They waited calmly for a 1917-style methodical offensive, to open fire only when the enemy had revealed his intentions and arrived at short range. Meanwhile, the Panzers had already pierced the French line and, more serious, the Stuka were bombing the French artillery.
They should have "panicked" a bit more
Fridomfry 2 years ago 7
@Fridomfry You there were you?
gillyssquashball 1 year ago
@gillyssquashball, is that a Frank Sinatra song? Or - what do you mean ?
Fridomfry 1 year ago