@supercreamysperm If it were not for a delay of the invasion caused by the italians in greece, the germans wouldve reached moscow before the winter set in and won the war in the east.
@labartic Italians are/were/always will be, hopeless fighters. Americans have hyper-sophisticated military technology, the Chinese are extremely efficient thieves of other people's tech, and Russians are the bravest fighters on Earth. These three massive countries will soon dominate the planet, and my little Britain will be relegated to a second-rank nation.
I had senn some comments saying that american didnt win ww2 the russians did, well tell me this if Russia is soo great and powerful then why was the massacre in Stalingrad
@theawesomegamer12 both the USA and USSR played about an equal role, just in different theaters The USA was responsible for about 95% of japans navy while the USSR was responsible for 80% of the German army.
@VanOstrum are you kidding me? eaqual role? USSR freed fucking Europe and concored Germany, and all you did is fight in the Pacific oachean and drop fucking atom bombs. Yes,it was very needed for a 2 front, but never say an eaqual role, the Soviets paid the biggest price of us all
@VanOstrum Exactly....Russia gets credit for largely defeating the Germans and the Americans get credit for defeating the Japenese....victory could not have been done without a joint effort.....and one must not forget brave England also...
The Red Army that existed on June 21, 1941 was destroyed by December of 1941.
The Red Army that steamrolled into Berlin, destroying EVERYthing in it's path, was a Red Army that was built from the ground up from the autumn of 1942 thru late 1943.
@lukebccb But, tell me, please, what army it was that regained from Germans a good part of Cremea since 1st January 1942 and, afterward, kept it under its controll for about 4,5 months? My grandfather was taking part in that battle and he was a Rad Army officer. And it was only one episode of continuous hard fightings from the 1st half of 1942 year.
@D3adtrap im sorry, was it like the jews? were billions and billions of jews were killed to nazis, or was it only 100k like polish officials say in total for all the camps
At the end of WW2 The Soviet Union Killed or capture 80% of the Wermacht. So SuperMachinegunner is absolutly right. D-Day was in late 1944, the world was virtualy won but still hell of a fight tought. The battle of Kursk, the biggest Tank battle in history was the end of the III Reich.
Not sure I would agree with that, everyone who's into history knows without Russia holding the line the west would lost the war... perhaps only the A bomb that the U.S. made might if used on Berlin may have stopped the Hitler
@Xixlplix Actually you will find that that we needed each other. If the allies had lost in north africa germany had access to the oil in the middle east and a flanking move on stalingrad. I really don't think russia could have won if they were fighting a war on two fronts.
we need to stop all these pointless so-called "wars" in the mid-east and have another real war. bring on WW3. America, England and France vs Russia, China and Germany. it would be great! just like the old days. could you imagine the level of mass murder we could achieve with all our modern weapons. mini-nukes would be mad-crazy to see in action.
ww2 is the time where countries races against proving whose technology is the best (in war). It is like a time where browser still doesn't evolve to its full capabilities. And if a browser (at that time) succeed in supporting almost all important platform (such as flash), then the browser considered great. Yeah, ww3 is the time weapons have reach its maximum (nowadays). Bring it on. (i'm not sure I agree with u or not - but it makes sense if our country doesnt get involved.)
I've always thought it was a bit like that too. Not only "who had the best technology" but also, which nation could take the most pain, suffering and attrition. I think WW2 is where (mainly) Britain got its reputation for having the best "fighting spirit", Germany for its "innovation and efficiency", France for being "surrender monkeys", Russia for being "Rough and ready, brute force".
I hate people that do this but I guess I'm one of them, check out my video: watch?v=Ojh-wcS2t9s.
It's a little montage I put together of Battle of France footage. Tell me what you think it's my first video so I need your most brutal criticsm if I have any hope to improve. Again sorry for this awful self promotion but I don't know how else to do it.
@SuperMachinegunner i have to disagree with you, the germans could make no gains once the west landed on the beaches. It was hellish on both sides. Eastern front you had endless numbers from the lower work class of russia attacking, in the west you had complete allied air superiority and a massive army grinding through all of france and into germany. russians just got there first.
@gamergamer15 the germans havnt gain gorund long before the americans made it to europe, by mid 1943 the germans were constantly retreating, all the americans and the brits did was fight an already defeated army, ww2 was lost for the germans one way or another, switzerland wouldve won if they'd invaded germany in 1944, the soviets completley smashd the germans, not the americans.
Germans would have captured it if they used the correct tactics and went in the right direction but nooooooooooo but still one of the greatest tank battles ever
i think he means 'compared' to the Eastern Front, not that it was a vacation. the soviets hadn'd been signatories to the Geneva Convention, laying down codes of treatment of prisoners, civilians etc, and Hitlers viewed them as sub-human, brutality led to brutality, along with freezing temps and the activities of the ss cleansing units, who destroyed any good will existing in the population at the beginning of the campaign, meant that to be in France or the Low Countries
@bwtegu69 He just means comparatively. The Eastern front was fraught with unbelievable brutality; whereas the Western was fought with more civility (as much as an oxymoron that is). However, my grandfather lost his left leg during the Italian Campaign, and I certainly agree that for him that was no vacation.
It is often said that if Guderian kept marching on Moscow, Hitler would have won. Jonasdarowje's opinion is that Wermacht should have kept marching south-east, bypassing Moscow. I think that Germany was doomed regardless. No win situation. If Guderian would not have helped to capture Kiev, he could have been hit from behind (south) from that are as he moved further east. If the focus would have been on the Stalingrad in 1941... there would be Stalingrad in 41. USSR was too big for Hitler
Focussing on Moscow after the immense victory at Kiev was the biggest mistake of the German High Command. Continuing further south-east into the the oil-rich Caucasus and the Black Sea Coast would have been a much more easier task with a valuable prize.
In the South there was a huge gap the Soviet frontline, exploiting this Germany might have managed to cut of Russia from its mineral lifeline.
Few flaws in your theory: Germans did not expect this to be a long war, they estimated russia to fall in few weeks and there fore no need for extra resources. Second of all russians thought in 1941 germy would focus on south insted they went to Moscow. In 1942 russians thought germans would atack Moscow again, but it was Stalingrad.
Germans biggest mistake of world war two was invading USSR in a first place
Hitler HAD TO attack Stalin. If he would not, Stalin would have attacked - according to his plan and kindly replying for the persistent invitation of his new friend, Winston Churchill and the rest of Europe. If Stalin attacked first, Germany would have collapsed within months if not weeks, like it did in 1944/45, when the severely weakened USSR knocked on Germany's door. So, Hitler should not have attacked anybody.
What if, could if, you can’t rewrite history, only winners can do that. The FACT IS the POLOCKS owe the YUGOS for their country, if the YUGOS didn’t put up such a great fight against the WHOPS, to then have the KRAUTS come in to conquer, Operation Barbarossa would have taken place much earlier, and the COMMIE winter would not have stopped the GERRY’s advance before Moscow, POLOCKS and LIMIES should be thankful to Edward R. Murrow
@krystian1333 Guys, if you are interested in history: the Poles did very well in WW2. Don't laugh, I learned about it recently myself. It were Poles (Polaks) who solved Enigma, the german cipher machine, so the Brits know a lot about German plans. Also, Polish pilots flew with Royal Air force and scored twice kills per pilot than Brits. Poles fought courageously in Italy, Normandy and Russia. They absolutely didn't deserve to be sold to Stalin. Yugos did well too!!! (Better than the French)
many ppl say the germans should have pressed on to Moscow. What they fail to realise is that the 700,000+ troops in regions in and around Kiev would be a thorn to Hitler's panzer forces. Who knows they are like an immense partisan group that threaten to cut off supplies for Army Group Centre. And it is also impossible for Army Group South to tackle this threat alone while allowing Army Group Centre to push onto Moscow.
the soviet couldn't do anything because the Germans are a mighty force and strongest army in all the world but Russia had a great luck with its weather, that's why the German lost the war also Hitler should have listened to his generals
@121314151112131415 Germany lost the war because Russia's winters are almost always that cold, he made the same mistake as Napoleon during the Napoleonic Wars. They also lost because of D-day on of the most important battles of WW2 (like Stalingrad Russia's turning point) D-day helped relieve stress on the USSR.
By the time of the D-day, June 1944, Germany was pretty much finished. Stalin recaptured much of its own territory, had the initiative, and overwhelming superiority in men and materiel. In June 1944, as the JIs where landing in France, Germany suffered a defeat that eclipsed Stalingrad and Kursk, the Operation Bagration, which wipe out 0.5Mil german soldiers, and opened the road to Berlin... it was over for germany with or without landings in France.
this is a typical misconception, originating, in part, in Nazi propaganda: "russians are inferior creatures and it is just bad weather that did not permit the superior race to win". If it wasn't winter, they would have come with another excuse... mud, heat, dust... rain. Germany was much weaker than USSR in 1941 and so Stalin didn't expect Hitler to attack. It was Hitler who was lucky to live till 1945. If not his brief success in 1941, he would have been dead in 42.
@SuperMachinegunner Doing a bad job doesn't make your Military look stronger. I don't see why people belittle American involvment for the sole reason that; They did a good job. England had 12 months left, if that. A 1-front war with the soviets (with virtually no airforce at this time) Would've been a 20m casuality joke for the Nazis. America fought on two fronts, With a larger threat from the Japanese than the Germans. Like i said, just because we did a good job doesn't mean we did less.
@TumisHumis true, but naval combat aint as mutch of a pain in the ass then fightig over 3 million soldiers and tanks on the ground, the americans beat the japs, no question, but the russians beat the nazi's, and the nazis were better then the japs
@SuperMachinegunner The nazis weren't stronger than the japs. The japs had a functional navy, that rivaled any two countries in the world combined. Their resources were sent home to protect the homeland, "The Nazis failled at doing this" If we'd fought on the ground in japan, more lives would've been lost. The atomic weapons we used saved countless American, and Japanese lives. The nazis were dwarfed by the Japs in nearly every category, unfortualy for the chinese even civilian lives taken
@TumisHumis the jap navy was better then the nazi navy, any idiot can see that, but onthe ground the nazi's were bette, japan jaild to defeat china, and germany took europe and fought the soviets for 4 years, the german army was about 17 million strong in the end, if teh japs wouldve been better then the nazis then they wouldntve gotten theyre ass kicked. oh and the nuklear attacks on japan may have saved a bunch of americans, but the radiation is still killing people today and unborn children
@SuperMachinegunner Calm down, i'm just saying that Japan killed more Civilians than Germany. They had a larger empire, and killed more people, this is a fact. "Germany took europe and fought soviets for 4 years" They controlled a few european countries for a short period of time. Japan had every piece of land in the western pacific from japan to australia. Germany posed less of a threat to the world, because they were seperated by an ocean. No navy means no invasion. Japan was stronger.
@TumisHumis germany actually killd more civilians then the japs,all together about 50 mil people died and about half of that go's on the germans account, and the japs were only a threat to australia and asia, germany was a threat to just about everybody witch is also y america invaded the third reich in 44, if germany wouldve defeated the soviets then we would all be speaking german or we'd be allied with them.japs wouldntve won the war even if god wouldve helpd them or aliens
@SuperMachinegunner You didn't refute any of my points. I hope English is your 2nd language. The japanese had a fuctioning Airforce, Navy, and Army. They had better tactics and methods, they retreated when neccesary. They had officers consulting with their emporer. Hitler was a 1 man army, he answered to no one. He lost the war himself. The Americans had to win the war in the pacific with no help from anyone.
@TumisHumis english is my 2nd language,im german american. i think the german blitzkrieg tactic is better then the japanese one,and as far as i know the japs didnt retreat.i agree with hitler beeing a one man army kinda guy it wouldve been better if he had let his generals be in charge like guderian, rommel,kleist and keitel recommendet several times. america had an advantage against the japs tho, they had more troops and resources, the japs werent enough to stop them, same as teh nazi's
@SuperMachinegunner ... I mean the Japs didn't even have any real tanks, their soldiers were equiped with inferior weapons nearly all of the time, they still used ancient military doctrine and inferior tactics. The Germans had very, very good tactics and possed most of the best weapons in WW2, the japs were litteraly decades behind. The Japanese Yamato is a prime example of obsalete tactics. And I can tell you that the Germans had a very functional airforce many times superior to the Japs.
@TumisHumis - Only because most of the territory which Japan took was defended by either very under-developed countries or were absolutaly completely unprepared for war. The Germans had a HELL of a LOT more to worry about, they had pretty much all of the worlds super powers on thier doorsteop, including the Brit navy and RAF, not to mention the maginot line and the USSR.
And to say the Japs were better than the German army in every single way is complete BS and shows you really have no idea.
the german soldier is way better then the japanese, in training, in weapons, in technology. The japanese by the way never retreated. take the german superiority and the japanase military way of living and even the soviet would lost the war
@thebiest100 Just saying, all things considered, Japan's Empire was a larger threat to the world than Nazi Germany. In fact, when you consider the geography of their empire compared to Nazi Germany's, you'll notice the nazis are surrounded by powers, and the Japs have... Open ocean and weak civilizations. They could've had 3-4 timezones from pole to pole were it not for American naval interference. The Germans wanted to expand and sign a peace treaty. The Japs wanted to expand.
@TumisHumis True, although it was also american ignorance and isolationism that nearly let japan win. An American officer who predicted the pearl habour attack was fired for suggesting, and then what happened 3 yearls later? the japanese attacked. If US carriers were in the harbour then Japan would have won the war in the pacific. You are also forgetting that If it was US isolationism that help cause the wall street crash which led to Japan wanted (even needing) autarchy (self-sufficiency).
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx Jesus Christ, we just can't get it right! "Americans meddle in other country's affairs!" "It's all America's fault because they didn't interfere!!" Hindsight 20-20 right? What you said about the carriers being in port is also a joke. The pacific would've been far bloodier, but when the gears starting turning in American factories, nothing was going to stop us. (Nothing)
@TumisHumis No, it's true. US isolationism did lead to Japanese expansion. The wall street crash and US tarrifs meant that Japan got no resources, so they decided to invade manchuria first, later everywhere else for this reason, At this point the US didn't care becuase it was isolationism, and the league of nations was undermined by the self interest of Britain and France, and was weakened becuase the USSR and Germany didn't join until (in germany's case) 1933.
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx I believe you, and i agreed with you in my last comment. I'm just highlighting how ironic it is that the *One Time* in history that we didn't act premtively, we got burned, and people blamed us. Now we're acting premtively and getting crucified by the people of the world for being Imperialistic Zionist Jew-Puppets, or whatever they're calling us.
@TumisHumis I would go further, I think the US and the UK/rest of EU is also acting idiotically. The sheer hypocrasy of the major powers these days is infuriating. And i would say that the US didn't act (in ww2) until it was threatened, and the British policy of appeasment made Germany more powerful.
But the US didn't join when Britain was attacked, or when france was, or when the soviets were, or even when the Japs attacked the pacific. Only did the US join when it was attacked.
Which is why i find it unbearabe when the USA claims it won the war. IT didn't, but the allies did. The british crippled Italian power in North Africa, and stopped Germany's expansion. The US island-hopped across the pacific, Commenwealth (mainly non-british) forces fought back against the japs in asia, as did the USSR. Then there was the ostfront, and westfront - where Britian took north (belguim, N.Germany-Cleves etc) and the US took most of france and the south of ger. (munich)
@thebiest100 I seriously doubt that. Purely for the massive amount of soviets. 1 on 1, your new supersoldier would win, but i reckon a better combination would be British ingenuity and 'stiff-upper lip', with a soviets sense of what they are fighting for, and comradeship, with British/German tactics.
@TumisHumis A functional navy!?!?! The japanese commanders had almost no experience in naval combat, and didn't deploy their ships properly, especially their aircraft carriers which were sent out with NO naval protection, as was the Yamato's sister ship, the Musasi at Leyte Gulf. 'Even civilian lives taken' - WTF! What do you think the Nazi's did in Russia. THEY BURNE DOWN AND KILLED THE INHAPITANTS OF 5,000 VILLAGES!!!!!!!!!!
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx You do realize that the japanese fleet out-numbered the entire allied navy (Minus America). Their navy was either 1st or 2nd the entire war. (Back and forth with America's)
@TumisHumis Yes, but the US had absolutly nill reserves (troop-wise), just before d-day.
On d-day;
100% of the air-cover was R.A.F
80% of the ships were Royal Navy
70% of the troops were British/Commenwealth
And while i agree with you on the navy front, i would say that the japs had the best Navy on power, but it simply didn't deploy them correctly, sending single ships out by themselves with no air-cover, if they used them effectivly, at key points such as midway, might have changed things.....
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx Although they fucked up, (Thank whoever was in charge of that) at the start of the pacific war, both navies prided themselves on their Battleships. They had no idea that Carriers would be the future of naval warfare, and both sides made mistakes. Like i said "Hindsight 20-20" It was a new method of war, and their pride out-weighed their punch, but all i'm getting at... is with everything considered... America has done more for freedom than any five other countries on earth.
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx Regardless of the Soviet's huge involvement in WW2, without a doubt they ended up doing more bad than the Nazis and Imperial Japs combined. So we can basically scratch off their efforts. We had to whoop England's tyrannical ass to even gain freedom, the only other country comparable is France, and we all know how valiantly they fought in ww2 (Lol)
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx Also, more Americans landed on Normandy than British. (Canada doesn't count to them) Plus the naval fleet enclosing on Okinawa displaced a LOT more water than the entire d-day naval force.
Thats utter Bullshit.Canada does count, it's part of the commenwealth, that would be like not including Alaska!
On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.
Utter bullshit is combinding two country's infantry troops to twist the balance of people involved. Our country sent more men than England's did. Canadian troops were sent from Canada (By Canada)
@TumisHumis No, it's not! Becuase it was the FUCKING COMMENWEALTH!!!!!!!!!! The British FUCKING EMPIRE! Therefore it bloody well does count you fucktard! Just like Belarus counted towards the USSR.
D-Day casualties were:
2.700 British;
946 Canadians;
6,603 Americas:
Between 4,000 and 9.000 Germans;
Look who lost the most men!
I wonder why - Perhaps it was their stupid generals choosing a beach with a cliff, and the other being the best defended beach on the french coast.
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx -.- my god you don't look into anything, it was an opening, given to us by the French Underground, as the ONLY place where an invasion of that caliber could take place, Eisenhower was a military master. People die in war, just cause we and the allies lost some men does not make him a idiot, we were supposed to lose hundreds more than that according to predictions, but we didn't? Were the Germans just missing every 2nd bullet or something? No.
@AtomicBlizzard12 A Military Master!? He even after D-Day led to the deaths of many more men both Allied and German with his shocking decisions. He left the Ardennes barely defended and decided to take over all land between the UK and Germany, rather than just Germany. And you do release i'm only talking about Omaha/Utah, not all the beaches. Eisenhower had NO military experience, and only became Supreme Commander because he was friends with Roosevelt.
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx Yeah you just get to be general out of a lottery huh? Dude its war people die, and lets not forge the Germans also had leader, like Romell (spelling?) who were great, they weren't just a bunch of headless chickens with machine guns. Also fuck yeah he took over all that land, what you think hes just gonna bypass all those German fortifications so that when he attacks Germany he can get cornered? Read Sun Tzu's Art of war, it will tell you many things that simply history won't.
@AtomicBlizzard12 What the FUCK are you on about! Eisenhower was promoted because he was a friend of the presidents i said nothing about a lottery? frankly, you didn't need to take over all of that land, we could have easily just pushed through to Berlin. In 1944, the XXX corps had 400 miles of fuel, and only volkstrum stood in their way but they were not allowed to advance by Eisenhower! trying to take over the entire are led to the slaughter at Monte casino! Patton = Good, Eisenhower = Awful.
@SuperMachinegunner Without a doubt the heaviest fighting of WW2 took place on the eastern front. Accourding to wikipedia an estimated 8,800,000 to 10,700,000 russian soldiers lost their life fighting against the german forces. One should acknowledge these sacrifices. The allied forces would not have stood a chance against Germany if it had not been for the Soviet forces preoccupying them on the east.
This however is rarely, if ever ,portrayed in the Hollywood productions.
@superfuzz80 heaviestfighting was onthe eastern front, but keepinmind that not everything that is on wikipedia is true, the russians probably lost a hell of alot more then 10,7mil, hell they lost several hundred thousands in berlin. of course the russians arnt gonna be mentiond in hollywood ww2 movies, hollywood likes to give the ilusion that the americans won ww2 by them selfs,i once watchd a documentary on ww2 and the russians werent even mentiond.
@SuperMachinegunner That shows how horrible russian soldiers are, german soldiers who are not accustomed to the climate and little of them killed alot of russians. And russians was first allied with hitler until hitler attacked them. Most of fighting was not in eastern front, just a lot of bloodshed in eastern front because russians used peasants as 'shields' to tire germans, and also they SUCKED
@SuperMachinegunner russia was the main reason we won ww2 EUROPE but the pacific was entirely won by the US (with a lot of help from britian in india, and australians) also stalin requested that the allies land in france to take pressure off of the eastern front. to guess i would have said that it would have stalemated in poland if the US didnt land in france. not to mention if US didnt fight japan that the japanese would have invaded russia through china and the red army would have lost
@SuperMachinegunner hollywood is composed of American corporations, maybe that has something to do with it? I watch man WW2 movies many in russia, and they don't mention Americans, hmmm maybe cause there made in Russia?
Idk dude but that might just have something to do with it.
@SuperMachinegunner Just in the Operation Barbarossa,the russians lost over 7 million! so the total is rising to over 12 million lost for the russians during WW2...
@ollo1982 The Russians actually lost just under 20 million soldiers and civilians, including around 2 million prisoners of war, 1 million of those were shot. 1 million german prisoners were killed by the soviets.
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx: actually the Soviets lost between 10 to 11 million soldiers dead. These numbers are even accepted by western historians. The bigger numbers were the 16 million Soviet civilians that died from outright nazi murder and atrocities to being killed being caught in the conflct to dying as a result of the deprivations brought on by the nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx Give me the source about 1 million german prisoners killed by soviets! Its a lie! Yes, both sides of conflict shoot tankists. Russian shoot ss-soldiers and germans shoot jews in Red Army and political officers. But where are from you took this number - killed by soviets 1 million german POW?!
@GiantToad666 I can't remember the exact name of the book i read it in, but it was on the eastern front. Although it was actually far far less than 1 million - just around 350,000 (11% of all taken), wheras the nazi's killed 3.3 million soviet prisoners. The americans (and french) actually killed far more german prisoners. rense.()com/general46/germ.htm) - There is much propaganda around all of this, but most of history was written by the US - unfortunatly.
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx Thank you for this link, i will read it tomorrow. I have never been interested with allies treatment with the german POWs. It some new for me. Germans starved soviet POWs - it is a well-known fact. Russian treatment with imprisoned german soldiers was more humane. Of course, in battle rush, driven by emotions soldiers sometimes killed surrenderring enemy.
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx And example of Stalingrad - from surrendered 90.000 germans returned to home after the war only 16.000 soldies - it was caused by mass dystrophy of surrendered germans and by mass wounds of them.
But soviets treated german prisoners very more humane than germans treated soviets.
@GiantToad666 Rubbish....what a lie this is ....Stalin and Hitler both treated their captive horrifically....do not apologize for the evil Stalin...he is no better then Hitler.
@Albertanator Please give me the links about starving german POWs by soviets as german did with soviet. Give me the links about massacre of german POWs as german did in Babiy Yar in Kiev.
Nonethelles - Soviet Union under Stalin`s command liberated Europe from nazism. Stalin`s regime had not goals as Gitler had - to destroy seized territories and occupy these territories with its citizens.
@Albertanator Please give me the links about starving german POWs by soviets as german did with soviet. Give me the links about massacre of german POWs as german did in Babiy Yar in Kiev.
Nonethelles - Soviet Union under Stalin`s command liberated Europe from nazism. Stalin`s regime had not goals as Gitler had - to destroy seized territories and occupy these territories with its citizens.
@Albertanator Please give me the links about starving german POWs by soviets as german did with soviet. Give me the links about massacre of german POWs as german did in Babiy Yar in Kiev.
Nonethelles - Soviet Union under Stalin`s command liberated Europe from nazism. Stalin`s regime had not goals as Gitler had - to destroy seized territories and occupy these territories with its citizens.
@ollo1982 The Russians actually lost just under 20 million soldiers and civilians, including around 2 million prisoners of war, 1 million of those were shot. 1 million german prisoners were killed by the soviets.
Yeah, it's definitely hard to understate the Soviet losses in this conflict. If you combine all the American deaths, from all causes, in all the wars we've ever fought, they don't add up to half the Soviet soldiers who died in German POW camps during World War II.
@superfuzz80 i read a book called WW2 eastern front well that book said 3 million deaths in russia 1.5 millon in germant [im not saying ur wrong] just thats what i heard
Guderian was perhaps the greatest strategic planner in the first half of the 20th Century. He basically created the modern war tactic of the blitzkrieg, which still exists today. This man wanted to post up further southwest of Moscow to wait out the Russian winter. Hitler overruled him, so you know what happened next.
@manmanguy this "strategic planner" should have planned for some clothes for his army and "created" tanks that can function in snow and mud. "Wait" is not an option in a Blitzkrieg.
@silver610310 Well that's the problem. Hitler extended supply lines beyond repair. Even the Blitzkrieg can be made useless when overextended. Besides Blitzkrieg is merely a tactic
Fail Germany
jackm900 1 month ago
Only a fucking idiot would try to invade a country the size of Russia.
supercreamysperm 3 months ago
@supercreamysperm If it were not for a delay of the invasion caused by the italians in greece, the germans wouldve reached moscow before the winter set in and won the war in the east.
labartic 1 month ago
@labartic Italians are/were/always will be, hopeless fighters. Americans have hyper-sophisticated military technology, the Chinese are extremely efficient thieves of other people's tech, and Russians are the bravest fighters on Earth. These three massive countries will soon dominate the planet, and my little Britain will be relegated to a second-rank nation.
supercreamysperm 1 month ago
I had senn some comments saying that american didnt win ww2 the russians did, well tell me this if Russia is soo great and powerful then why was the massacre in Stalingrad
theawesomegamer12 3 months ago
@theawesomegamer12
Umm the Russians won Stalingrad read a book
buntingsd 2 months ago
@buntingsd i never said they lost
theawesomegamer12 2 months ago
@theawesomegamer12 both the USA and USSR played about an equal role, just in different theaters The USA was responsible for about 95% of japans navy while the USSR was responsible for 80% of the German army.
VanOstrum 1 month ago
@VanOstrum are you kidding me? eaqual role? USSR freed fucking Europe and concored Germany, and all you did is fight in the Pacific oachean and drop fucking atom bombs. Yes,it was very needed for a 2 front, but never say an eaqual role, the Soviets paid the biggest price of us all
GassNaut 2 weeks ago
Comment removed
DacianSwordsmith 2 weeks ago
@VanOstrum Exactly....Russia gets credit for largely defeating the Germans and the Americans get credit for defeating the Japenese....victory could not have been done without a joint effort.....and one must not forget brave England also...
Albertanator 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from Pzkfw5
@theawesomegamer12 you're an idiot, don't ask why, you just know why
GassNaut 2 weeks ago
5.5 million germans kia in ww2. and we gripe over a thousand
BigRedChester 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I'm not a nazi supporter, but I think that only germans can fight during several years against the rest of the world.No other nation cant do that
CM99501 4 months ago
The Red Army that existed on June 21, 1941 was destroyed by December of 1941.
The Red Army that steamrolled into Berlin, destroying EVERYthing in it's path, was a Red Army that was built from the ground up from the autumn of 1942 thru late 1943.
lukebccb 5 months ago
Comment removed
jwandresl 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lukebccb But, tell me, please, what army it was that regained from Germans a good part of Cremea since 1st January 1942 and, afterward, kept it under its controll for about 4,5 months? My grandfather was taking part in that battle and he was a Rad Army officer. And it was only one episode of continuous hard fightings from the 1st half of 1942 year.
jwandresl 4 months ago
USSR casualties:
7 000 000 KIA
3 300 000 Died in German captivity
Total: 10 300 000 Military casualties
Civilian casualties are around 16 000 000
Total deaths for USSR: 26 300 000
D3adtrap 5 months ago 11
@D3adtrap did you not include the 13 million who died in the ukrain famine? where USSR took all there wheat?
hitlerjorge 2 months ago 2
@hitlerjorge
That happened 20 years before WW2 -.-''
Ps. 13 million is quite optimistic number BTW.
D3adtrap 2 months ago
@D3adtrap im sorry, was it like the jews? were billions and billions of jews were killed to nazis, or was it only 100k like polish officials say in total for all the camps
hitlerjorge 2 months ago
@D3adtrap not including the russians, who were mostly taken to labor camps
hitlerjorge 2 months ago
@hitlerjorge
What? How labor camps have anything to do with the famine? Get your shit straight.
D3adtrap 2 months ago 5
This has been flagged as spam show
Hitler=God
Why?
Cuz he was so fucking smart
in my opinion he was smarter than Osama
Imagine how would the world look like
But the allies surround the Nazis
RadianRaptor 5 months ago
Without Soviet Union Hitler would capture whole Europe and then move on to USA
Mrjaguarpaw1 6 months ago
Thank god the allies won. If the nazi's killed all the jews who would do my financing? XD
xflow36x 6 months ago
During WW2 a bomb landed in my grandparents apartment building in odessa makes me greatfull for everything i have today
russiantaco 6 months ago
At the end of WW2 The Soviet Union Killed or capture 80% of the Wermacht. So SuperMachinegunner is absolutly right. D-Day was in late 1944, the world was virtualy won but still hell of a fight tought. The battle of Kursk, the biggest Tank battle in history was the end of the III Reich.
onsenfoudunomful 6 months ago
Not sure I would agree with that, everyone who's into history knows without Russia holding the line the west would lost the war... perhaps only the A bomb that the U.S. made might if used on Berlin may have stopped the Hitler
Xixlplix 7 months ago
@Xixlplix Actually you will find that that we needed each other. If the allies had lost in north africa germany had access to the oil in the middle east and a flanking move on stalingrad. I really don't think russia could have won if they were fighting a war on two fronts.
eaststandred 6 months ago
Nazi was great at there time
mathewnet123 7 months ago
we need to stop all these pointless so-called "wars" in the mid-east and have another real war. bring on WW3. America, England and France vs Russia, China and Germany. it would be great! just like the old days. could you imagine the level of mass murder we could achieve with all our modern weapons. mini-nukes would be mad-crazy to see in action.
MustNotRead 7 months ago
@MustNotRead what is wrong with you?
360PATCH 7 months ago
@360PATCH
what's wrong with you more like it. normal people love war.
MustNotRead 7 months ago
@MustNotRead This is fricken crazy
onsenfoudunomful 6 months ago
@MustNotRead
ww2 is the time where countries races against proving whose technology is the best (in war). It is like a time where browser still doesn't evolve to its full capabilities. And if a browser (at that time) succeed in supporting almost all important platform (such as flash), then the browser considered great. Yeah, ww3 is the time weapons have reach its maximum (nowadays). Bring it on. (i'm not sure I agree with u or not - but it makes sense if our country doesnt get involved.)
adErsante 6 months ago
@adErsante
I've always thought it was a bit like that too. Not only "who had the best technology" but also, which nation could take the most pain, suffering and attrition. I think WW2 is where (mainly) Britain got its reputation for having the best "fighting spirit", Germany for its "innovation and efficiency", France for being "surrender monkeys", Russia for being "Rough and ready, brute force".
You're right. Good point.
MustNotRead 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
watch?v=KnYAC2_hnKg
''SAVING MY PRIVATES" ★★★★★ (2011 - Tom Hanks)
a MUST see video. you need a good stomach - added yesterday
BAH @ YOUTUBE, THEY RATED THE VIDEO AS MATURE/DISTURBING CONTAINS! - PURE BS
MrChatItOut 8 months ago
watch?v=KnYAC2_hnKg
''SAVING MY PRIVATES" (2011 - tom hanks)
a MUST see video. you need a good stomach - added yesterday
MrChatItOut 8 months ago
I searched up bugs with pincers and got this :L
pricture 8 months ago
I hate people that do this but I guess I'm one of them, check out my video: watch?v=Ojh-wcS2t9s.
It's a little montage I put together of Battle of France footage. Tell me what you think it's my first video so I need your most brutal criticsm if I have any hope to improve. Again sorry for this awful self promotion but I don't know how else to do it.
fieldsofflanders 8 months ago
fuck hitler id piss on his grave..and ill shit on italy and japan
danakulchyski 9 months ago
Comment removed
danakulchyski 9 months ago
So many wars have been fought on Ukrainian soil. No wonder the Slavs there have almost never been able to prosper.
Vovk3 10 months ago
well, i think without the wester front wasnt there the east wouldof lost and its also the other way around no one fought harder than the other
modernlegocombat1 11 months ago
hahahahah watch this in 1911 style hahahahah
Rapter560 11 months ago
In WW2 My Grat Gradpa Was Practsing & He Step On A Mine & Got A Niddel In His I & Lived Blees His Heart
msixfreakx92 11 months ago
In Soviet Russia Hitler was Black
kostakii1030 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
great images of the war!
worldwar2images.blogspot.com
bestdealforyourmoney 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
great images of the war!
worldwar2images.blogspot.com
bestdealforyourmoney 11 months ago
@SuperMachinegunner i have to disagree with you, the germans could make no gains once the west landed on the beaches. It was hellish on both sides. Eastern front you had endless numbers from the lower work class of russia attacking, in the west you had complete allied air superiority and a massive army grinding through all of france and into germany. russians just got there first.
gamergamer15 1 year ago
@gamergamer15 the germans havnt gain gorund long before the americans made it to europe, by mid 1943 the germans were constantly retreating, all the americans and the brits did was fight an already defeated army, ww2 was lost for the germans one way or another, switzerland wouldve won if they'd invaded germany in 1944, the soviets completley smashd the germans, not the americans.
SuperMachinegunner 1 year ago
@SuperMachinegunner The best German generals were in the west =/. Who the Unites states and the British fought.
TheImperialistStates 11 months ago
Germans would have captured it if they used the correct tactics and went in the right direction but nooooooooooo but still one of the greatest tank battles ever
RobloxFreak122 1 year ago
Comment removed
930ajay 1 year ago
@930ajay ...
RobloxFreak122 1 year ago
would have been seen as a cushy number, second only to being in a reserved occupation
coppicer 1 year ago
i think he means 'compared' to the Eastern Front, not that it was a vacation. the soviets hadn'd been signatories to the Geneva Convention, laying down codes of treatment of prisoners, civilians etc, and Hitlers viewed them as sub-human, brutality led to brutality, along with freezing temps and the activities of the ss cleansing units, who destroyed any good will existing in the population at the beginning of the campaign, meant that to be in France or the Low Countries
coppicer 1 year ago
@SuperMachinegunner
Really? Were you there? How could war be like vacation?
bwtegu69 1 year ago
@bwtegu69 He just means comparatively. The Eastern front was fraught with unbelievable brutality; whereas the Western was fought with more civility (as much as an oxymoron that is). However, my grandfather lost his left leg during the Italian Campaign, and I certainly agree that for him that was no vacation.
DarthMercanto 1 year ago
the russians are sick fucks
PepsiPope 1 year ago
@TheGraduate2012 chuck norris removed by comment
skinheadfred94 1 year ago
It is often said that if Guderian kept marching on Moscow, Hitler would have won. Jonasdarowje's opinion is that Wermacht should have kept marching south-east, bypassing Moscow. I think that Germany was doomed regardless. No win situation. If Guderian would not have helped to capture Kiev, he could have been hit from behind (south) from that are as he moved further east. If the focus would have been on the Stalingrad in 1941... there would be Stalingrad in 41. USSR was too big for Hitler
silver610310 1 year ago
Focussing on Moscow after the immense victory at Kiev was the biggest mistake of the German High Command. Continuing further south-east into the the oil-rich Caucasus and the Black Sea Coast would have been a much more easier task with a valuable prize.
In the South there was a huge gap the Soviet frontline, exploiting this Germany might have managed to cut of Russia from its mineral lifeline.
Jonasdarowje 1 year ago
@Jonasdarowje
Few flaws in your theory: Germans did not expect this to be a long war, they estimated russia to fall in few weeks and there fore no need for extra resources. Second of all russians thought in 1941 germy would focus on south insted they went to Moscow. In 1942 russians thought germans would atack Moscow again, but it was Stalingrad.
Germans biggest mistake of world war two was invading USSR in a first place
D3adtrap 1 year ago
@D3adtrap
Hitler HAD TO attack Stalin. If he would not, Stalin would have attacked - according to his plan and kindly replying for the persistent invitation of his new friend, Winston Churchill and the rest of Europe. If Stalin attacked first, Germany would have collapsed within months if not weeks, like it did in 1944/45, when the severely weakened USSR knocked on Germany's door. So, Hitler should not have attacked anybody.
silver610310 1 year ago
@silver610310
If you want to go that long way back in things, you are totaly right.
D3adtrap 1 year ago
hitler killed himself when he saw his gasbill xD
sweden1997nicklas 1 year ago
What do u think happens after we die?
sluggo06 1 year ago
ahhh yes...touche
edwinb408 1 year ago
What a crazy time to have lived in.
edwinb408 1 year ago
@edwinb408 you mean to live in. There is no need for the 'have'.
europeanforlyfe 1 year ago
The point of a racial slur is that you get the idea, spellling has no bearing.
So I will assume it takes you and your group of fiends to install a light bulb
dirtywt 1 year ago
my grandfather be in the there
draganas123 1 year ago
What if, could if, you can’t rewrite history, only winners can do that. The FACT IS the POLOCKS owe the YUGOS for their country, if the YUGOS didn’t put up such a great fight against the WHOPS, to then have the KRAUTS come in to conquer, Operation Barbarossa would have taken place much earlier, and the COMMIE winter would not have stopped the GERRY’s advance before Moscow, POLOCKS and LIMIES should be thankful to Edward R. Murrow
dirtywt 1 year ago
@dirtywt are u dumb?
pilapawe92 1 year ago
@pilapawe92 Are you sensitive?
dirtywt 1 year ago
@dirtywt
Learn how to spell "Polocks", Its Polak
krystian1333 1 year ago
@krystian1333 Guys, if you are interested in history: the Poles did very well in WW2. Don't laugh, I learned about it recently myself. It were Poles (Polaks) who solved Enigma, the german cipher machine, so the Brits know a lot about German plans. Also, Polish pilots flew with Royal Air force and scored twice kills per pilot than Brits. Poles fought courageously in Italy, Normandy and Russia. They absolutely didn't deserve to be sold to Stalin. Yugos did well too!!! (Better than the French)
silver610310 1 year ago
many ppl say the germans should have pressed on to Moscow. What they fail to realise is that the 700,000+ troops in regions in and around Kiev would be a thorn to Hitler's panzer forces. Who knows they are like an immense partisan group that threaten to cut off supplies for Army Group Centre. And it is also impossible for Army Group South to tackle this threat alone while allowing Army Group Centre to push onto Moscow.
tool619 1 year ago
the soviet couldn't do anything because the Germans are a mighty force and strongest army in all the world but Russia had a great luck with its weather, that's why the German lost the war also Hitler should have listened to his generals
121314151112131415 1 year ago
@121314151112131415 Germany lost the war because Russia's winters are almost always that cold, he made the same mistake as Napoleon during the Napoleonic Wars. They also lost because of D-day on of the most important battles of WW2 (like Stalingrad Russia's turning point) D-day helped relieve stress on the USSR.
JohnT161 1 year ago
@JohnT161
By the time of the D-day, June 1944, Germany was pretty much finished. Stalin recaptured much of its own territory, had the initiative, and overwhelming superiority in men and materiel. In June 1944, as the JIs where landing in France, Germany suffered a defeat that eclipsed Stalingrad and Kursk, the Operation Bagration, which wipe out 0.5Mil german soldiers, and opened the road to Berlin... it was over for germany with or without landings in France.
silver610310 1 year ago
@121314151112131415
this is a typical misconception, originating, in part, in Nazi propaganda: "russians are inferior creatures and it is just bad weather that did not permit the superior race to win". If it wasn't winter, they would have come with another excuse... mud, heat, dust... rain. Germany was much weaker than USSR in 1941 and so Stalin didn't expect Hitler to attack. It was Hitler who was lucky to live till 1945. If not his brief success in 1941, he would have been dead in 42.
silver610310 1 year ago
Makes the western front look like nothing
Rocafile 1 year ago 3
@Rocafile compared to the eastern front the west was like vacation
SuperMachinegunner 1 year ago 34
This has been flagged as spam show
@SuperMachinegunner
When you attack a people in their native land, they will fight until they die to keep you away.
Vovk3 1 year ago
@SuperMachinegunner, I dont think it would be fair to decide who had it worst unless you fought through all of both campaigns.
thenoobfactor 1 year ago
@SuperMachinegunner The Russians don't have shit on the pacific though.
TumisHumis 1 year ago
@TumisHumis true, but for that they were fighting the germans for 4 years
SuperMachinegunner 1 year ago
@SuperMachinegunner Doing a bad job doesn't make your Military look stronger. I don't see why people belittle American involvment for the sole reason that; They did a good job. England had 12 months left, if that. A 1-front war with the soviets (with virtually no airforce at this time) Would've been a 20m casuality joke for the Nazis. America fought on two fronts, With a larger threat from the Japanese than the Germans. Like i said, just because we did a good job doesn't mean we did less.
TumisHumis 1 year ago
@TumisHumis true, but naval combat aint as mutch of a pain in the ass then fightig over 3 million soldiers and tanks on the ground, the americans beat the japs, no question, but the russians beat the nazi's, and the nazis were better then the japs
SuperMachinegunner 1 year ago
@SuperMachinegunner The nazis weren't stronger than the japs. The japs had a functional navy, that rivaled any two countries in the world combined. Their resources were sent home to protect the homeland, "The Nazis failled at doing this" If we'd fought on the ground in japan, more lives would've been lost. The atomic weapons we used saved countless American, and Japanese lives. The nazis were dwarfed by the Japs in nearly every category, unfortualy for the chinese even civilian lives taken
TumisHumis 1 year ago
@TumisHumis the jap navy was better then the nazi navy, any idiot can see that, but onthe ground the nazi's were bette, japan jaild to defeat china, and germany took europe and fought the soviets for 4 years, the german army was about 17 million strong in the end, if teh japs wouldve been better then the nazis then they wouldntve gotten theyre ass kicked. oh and the nuklear attacks on japan may have saved a bunch of americans, but the radiation is still killing people today and unborn children
SuperMachinegunner 1 year ago
@SuperMachinegunner Calm down, i'm just saying that Japan killed more Civilians than Germany. They had a larger empire, and killed more people, this is a fact. "Germany took europe and fought soviets for 4 years" They controlled a few european countries for a short period of time. Japan had every piece of land in the western pacific from japan to australia. Germany posed less of a threat to the world, because they were seperated by an ocean. No navy means no invasion. Japan was stronger.
TumisHumis 1 year ago
@TumisHumis germany actually killd more civilians then the japs,all together about 50 mil people died and about half of that go's on the germans account, and the japs were only a threat to australia and asia, germany was a threat to just about everybody witch is also y america invaded the third reich in 44, if germany wouldve defeated the soviets then we would all be speaking german or we'd be allied with them.japs wouldntve won the war even if god wouldve helpd them or aliens
SuperMachinegunner 1 year ago
@SuperMachinegunner You didn't refute any of my points. I hope English is your 2nd language. The japanese had a fuctioning Airforce, Navy, and Army. They had better tactics and methods, they retreated when neccesary. They had officers consulting with their emporer. Hitler was a 1 man army, he answered to no one. He lost the war himself. The Americans had to win the war in the pacific with no help from anyone.
TumisHumis 1 year ago
@TumisHumis english is my 2nd language,im german american. i think the german blitzkrieg tactic is better then the japanese one,and as far as i know the japs didnt retreat.i agree with hitler beeing a one man army kinda guy it wouldve been better if he had let his generals be in charge like guderian, rommel,kleist and keitel recommendet several times. america had an advantage against the japs tho, they had more troops and resources, the japs werent enough to stop them, same as teh nazi's
SuperMachinegunner 1 year ago
@SuperMachinegunner ... I mean the Japs didn't even have any real tanks, their soldiers were equiped with inferior weapons nearly all of the time, they still used ancient military doctrine and inferior tactics. The Germans had very, very good tactics and possed most of the best weapons in WW2, the japs were litteraly decades behind. The Japanese Yamato is a prime example of obsalete tactics. And I can tell you that the Germans had a very functional airforce many times superior to the Japs.
TomHartill 1 year ago
@TumisHumis - Only because most of the territory which Japan took was defended by either very under-developed countries or were absolutaly completely unprepared for war. The Germans had a HELL of a LOT more to worry about, they had pretty much all of the worlds super powers on thier doorsteop, including the Brit navy and RAF, not to mention the maginot line and the USSR.
And to say the Japs were better than the German army in every single way is complete BS and shows you really have no idea.
TomHartill 1 year ago
Comment removed
TomHartill 1 year ago
@TumisHumis
the german soldier is way better then the japanese, in training, in weapons, in technology. The japanese by the way never retreated. take the german superiority and the japanase military way of living and even the soviet would lost the war
thebiest100 9 months ago
@thebiest100 Just saying, all things considered, Japan's Empire was a larger threat to the world than Nazi Germany. In fact, when you consider the geography of their empire compared to Nazi Germany's, you'll notice the nazis are surrounded by powers, and the Japs have... Open ocean and weak civilizations. They could've had 3-4 timezones from pole to pole were it not for American naval interference. The Germans wanted to expand and sign a peace treaty. The Japs wanted to expand.
TumisHumis 9 months ago
@TumisHumis True, although it was also american ignorance and isolationism that nearly let japan win. An American officer who predicted the pearl habour attack was fired for suggesting, and then what happened 3 yearls later? the japanese attacked. If US carriers were in the harbour then Japan would have won the war in the pacific. You are also forgetting that If it was US isolationism that help cause the wall street crash which led to Japan wanted (even needing) autarchy (self-sufficiency).
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 9 months ago
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx Jesus Christ, we just can't get it right! "Americans meddle in other country's affairs!" "It's all America's fault because they didn't interfere!!" Hindsight 20-20 right? What you said about the carriers being in port is also a joke. The pacific would've been far bloodier, but when the gears starting turning in American factories, nothing was going to stop us. (Nothing)
TumisHumis 9 months ago
@TumisHumis No, it's true. US isolationism did lead to Japanese expansion. The wall street crash and US tarrifs meant that Japan got no resources, so they decided to invade manchuria first, later everywhere else for this reason, At this point the US didn't care becuase it was isolationism, and the league of nations was undermined by the self interest of Britain and France, and was weakened becuase the USSR and Germany didn't join until (in germany's case) 1933.
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 9 months ago
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx I believe you, and i agreed with you in my last comment. I'm just highlighting how ironic it is that the *One Time* in history that we didn't act premtively, we got burned, and people blamed us. Now we're acting premtively and getting crucified by the people of the world for being Imperialistic Zionist Jew-Puppets, or whatever they're calling us.
TumisHumis 9 months ago
@TumisHumis I would go further, I think the US and the UK/rest of EU is also acting idiotically. The sheer hypocrasy of the major powers these days is infuriating. And i would say that the US didn't act (in ww2) until it was threatened, and the British policy of appeasment made Germany more powerful.
But the US didn't join when Britain was attacked, or when france was, or when the soviets were, or even when the Japs attacked the pacific. Only did the US join when it was attacked.
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 9 months ago
@TumisHumis
Which is why i find it unbearabe when the USA claims it won the war. IT didn't, but the allies did. The british crippled Italian power in North Africa, and stopped Germany's expansion. The US island-hopped across the pacific, Commenwealth (mainly non-british) forces fought back against the japs in asia, as did the USSR. Then there was the ostfront, and westfront - where Britian took north (belguim, N.Germany-Cleves etc) and the US took most of france and the south of ger. (munich)
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 9 months ago
@thebiest100 I seriously doubt that. Purely for the massive amount of soviets. 1 on 1, your new supersoldier would win, but i reckon a better combination would be British ingenuity and 'stiff-upper lip', with a soviets sense of what they are fighting for, and comradeship, with British/German tactics.
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 9 months ago
@TumisHumis A functional navy!?!?! The japanese commanders had almost no experience in naval combat, and didn't deploy their ships properly, especially their aircraft carriers which were sent out with NO naval protection, as was the Yamato's sister ship, the Musasi at Leyte Gulf. 'Even civilian lives taken' - WTF! What do you think the Nazi's did in Russia. THEY BURNE DOWN AND KILLED THE INHAPITANTS OF 5,000 VILLAGES!!!!!!!!!!
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 9 months ago
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx You do realize that the japanese fleet out-numbered the entire allied navy (Minus America). Their navy was either 1st or 2nd the entire war. (Back and forth with America's)
TumisHumis 9 months ago
@TumisHumis Yes, but the US had absolutly nill reserves (troop-wise), just before d-day.
On d-day;
100% of the air-cover was R.A.F
80% of the ships were Royal Navy
70% of the troops were British/Commenwealth
And while i agree with you on the navy front, i would say that the japs had the best Navy on power, but it simply didn't deploy them correctly, sending single ships out by themselves with no air-cover, if they used them effectivly, at key points such as midway, might have changed things.....
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 9 months ago
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx Although they fucked up, (Thank whoever was in charge of that) at the start of the pacific war, both navies prided themselves on their Battleships. They had no idea that Carriers would be the future of naval warfare, and both sides made mistakes. Like i said "Hindsight 20-20" It was a new method of war, and their pride out-weighed their punch, but all i'm getting at... is with everything considered... America has done more for freedom than any five other countries on earth.
TumisHumis 9 months ago
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx Regardless of the Soviet's huge involvement in WW2, without a doubt they ended up doing more bad than the Nazis and Imperial Japs combined. So we can basically scratch off their efforts. We had to whoop England's tyrannical ass to even gain freedom, the only other country comparable is France, and we all know how valiantly they fought in ww2 (Lol)
TumisHumis 9 months ago
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx Also, more Americans landed on Normandy than British. (Canada doesn't count to them) Plus the naval fleet enclosing on Okinawa displaced a LOT more water than the entire d-day naval force.
TumisHumis 9 months ago
@TumisHumis
Thats utter Bullshit.Canada does count, it's part of the commenwealth, that would be like not including Alaska!
On D-Day, the Allies landed around 156,000 troops in Normandy. The American forces landed numbered 73,000: 23,250 on Utah Beach, 34,250 on Omaha Beach, and 15,500 airborne troops. In the British and Canadian sector, 83,115 troops were landed (61,715 of them British): 24,970 on Gold Beach, 21,400 on Juno Beach, 28,845 on Sword Beach, and 7900 airborne troops.
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 9 months ago
Utter bullshit is combinding two country's infantry troops to twist the balance of people involved. Our country sent more men than England's did. Canadian troops were sent from Canada (By Canada)
TumisHumis 9 months ago
@TumisHumis No, it's not! Becuase it was the FUCKING COMMENWEALTH!!!!!!!!!! The British FUCKING EMPIRE! Therefore it bloody well does count you fucktard! Just like Belarus counted towards the USSR.
D-Day casualties were:
2.700 British;
946 Canadians;
6,603 Americas:
Between 4,000 and 9.000 Germans;
Look who lost the most men!
I wonder why - Perhaps it was their stupid generals choosing a beach with a cliff, and the other being the best defended beach on the french coast.
Eisenhower = idiot.
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 9 months ago
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx -.- my god you don't look into anything, it was an opening, given to us by the French Underground, as the ONLY place where an invasion of that caliber could take place, Eisenhower was a military master. People die in war, just cause we and the allies lost some men does not make him a idiot, we were supposed to lose hundreds more than that according to predictions, but we didn't? Were the Germans just missing every 2nd bullet or something? No.
AtomicBlizzard12 7 months ago
@AtomicBlizzard12 A Military Master!? He even after D-Day led to the deaths of many more men both Allied and German with his shocking decisions. He left the Ardennes barely defended and decided to take over all land between the UK and Germany, rather than just Germany. And you do release i'm only talking about Omaha/Utah, not all the beaches. Eisenhower had NO military experience, and only became Supreme Commander because he was friends with Roosevelt.
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 7 months ago
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx Yeah you just get to be general out of a lottery huh? Dude its war people die, and lets not forge the Germans also had leader, like Romell (spelling?) who were great, they weren't just a bunch of headless chickens with machine guns. Also fuck yeah he took over all that land, what you think hes just gonna bypass all those German fortifications so that when he attacks Germany he can get cornered? Read Sun Tzu's Art of war, it will tell you many things that simply history won't.
AtomicBlizzard12 7 months ago
@AtomicBlizzard12 What the FUCK are you on about! Eisenhower was promoted because he was a friend of the presidents i said nothing about a lottery? frankly, you didn't need to take over all of that land, we could have easily just pushed through to Berlin. In 1944, the XXX corps had 400 miles of fuel, and only volkstrum stood in their way but they were not allowed to advance by Eisenhower! trying to take over the entire are led to the slaughter at Monte casino! Patton = Good, Eisenhower = Awful.
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 7 months ago
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx Are you a General by any chance or...
Sp3tsnazFTW 5 months ago
@Sp3tsnazFTW No, but i know a fair bit i suppose.
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 5 months ago
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx Also, the Japanese were killing the Chinese years before Hitler started devouring Europe.
TumisHumis 9 months ago
@TumisHumis I heard Japanese soldiers would bury Chinese civilians alive.
ZR1Terror 9 months ago
@ZR1Terror To my knowledge there were no Japanese soldiers at Kyiev , or chinese civillians either. Perhaps you are commenting on another video ?
bisleybob3 8 months ago
@ZR1Terror
Thats nothing compared to what the germans did to the jude's.
TiLLiPooP 8 months ago
@TumisHumis Actually the russians were planning an invasion of japan if they did not surrender
paintballKid545 7 months ago
@SuperMachinegunner i agree
freezingmoon999 1 year ago
@SuperMachinegunner Without a doubt the heaviest fighting of WW2 took place on the eastern front. Accourding to wikipedia an estimated 8,800,000 to 10,700,000 russian soldiers lost their life fighting against the german forces. One should acknowledge these sacrifices. The allied forces would not have stood a chance against Germany if it had not been for the Soviet forces preoccupying them on the east.
This however is rarely, if ever ,portrayed in the Hollywood productions.
superfuzz80 1 year ago
@superfuzz80 heaviestfighting was onthe eastern front, but keepinmind that not everything that is on wikipedia is true, the russians probably lost a hell of alot more then 10,7mil, hell they lost several hundred thousands in berlin. of course the russians arnt gonna be mentiond in hollywood ww2 movies, hollywood likes to give the ilusion that the americans won ww2 by them selfs,i once watchd a documentary on ww2 and the russians werent even mentiond.
SuperMachinegunner 1 year ago 36
@SuperMachinegunner Yeah, cuz malboro cowboy killed all germans with his propaganda power!
untmortadela 10 months ago
@SuperMachinegunner That shows how horrible russian soldiers are, german soldiers who are not accustomed to the climate and little of them killed alot of russians. And russians was first allied with hitler until hitler attacked them. Most of fighting was not in eastern front, just a lot of bloodshed in eastern front because russians used peasants as 'shields' to tire germans, and also they SUCKED
pingu121094 9 months ago
@pingu121094 You are utterly retarded. I shall send you a pm as to why.
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 9 months ago
@SuperMachinegunner i agree
they do that in evrywar they fight
if their loosin they withraw and like in vietnam
and if they win they take all the credit
ramosxz 9 months ago 7
@SuperMachinegunner russia was the main reason we won ww2 EUROPE but the pacific was entirely won by the US (with a lot of help from britian in india, and australians) also stalin requested that the allies land in france to take pressure off of the eastern front. to guess i would have said that it would have stalemated in poland if the US didnt land in france. not to mention if US didnt fight japan that the japanese would have invaded russia through china and the red army would have lost
seminoleboy96 7 months ago
@SuperMachinegunner hollywood is composed of American corporations, maybe that has something to do with it? I watch man WW2 movies many in russia, and they don't mention Americans, hmmm maybe cause there made in Russia?
Idk dude but that might just have something to do with it.
AtomicBlizzard12 7 months ago
@SuperMachinegunner That is where you are wrong if you watch any decent documentary or read any decent book they honor the eastern allies.
eaststandred 6 months ago
@SuperMachinegunner Just in the Operation Barbarossa,the russians lost over 7 million! so the total is rising to over 12 million lost for the russians during WW2...
ollo1982 6 months ago
@SuperMachinegunner ofcourse thats not the killed amount,but includes the people getting wounded,and captured..
ollo1982 6 months ago
@ollo1982 The Russians actually lost just under 20 million soldiers and civilians, including around 2 million prisoners of war, 1 million of those were shot. 1 million german prisoners were killed by the soviets.
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 5 months ago
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx: actually the Soviets lost between 10 to 11 million soldiers dead. These numbers are even accepted by western historians. The bigger numbers were the 16 million Soviet civilians that died from outright nazi murder and atrocities to being killed being caught in the conflct to dying as a result of the deprivations brought on by the nazi invasion of the Soviet Union.
lukebccb 5 months ago
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx Give me the source about 1 million german prisoners killed by soviets! Its a lie! Yes, both sides of conflict shoot tankists. Russian shoot ss-soldiers and germans shoot jews in Red Army and political officers. But where are from you took this number - killed by soviets 1 million german POW?!
GiantToad666 3 weeks ago
@GiantToad666 I can't remember the exact name of the book i read it in, but it was on the eastern front. Although it was actually far far less than 1 million - just around 350,000 (11% of all taken), wheras the nazi's killed 3.3 million soviet prisoners. The americans (and french) actually killed far more german prisoners. rense.()com/general46/germ.htm) - There is much propaganda around all of this, but most of history was written by the US - unfortunatly.
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 3 weeks ago
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx Thank you for this link, i will read it tomorrow. I have never been interested with allies treatment with the german POWs. It some new for me. Germans starved soviet POWs - it is a well-known fact. Russian treatment with imprisoned german soldiers was more humane. Of course, in battle rush, driven by emotions soldiers sometimes killed surrenderring enemy.
GiantToad666 3 weeks ago
@xGODZILLAFIREFOXx And example of Stalingrad - from surrendered 90.000 germans returned to home after the war only 16.000 soldies - it was caused by mass dystrophy of surrendered germans and by mass wounds of them.
But soviets treated german prisoners very more humane than germans treated soviets.
GiantToad666 3 weeks ago
@GiantToad666 Rubbish....what a lie this is ....Stalin and Hitler both treated their captive horrifically....do not apologize for the evil Stalin...he is no better then Hitler.
Albertanator 2 weeks ago in playlist More videos from Pzkfw5
@Albertanator Please give me the links about starving german POWs by soviets as german did with soviet. Give me the links about massacre of german POWs as german did in Babiy Yar in Kiev.
Nonethelles - Soviet Union under Stalin`s command liberated Europe from nazism. Stalin`s regime had not goals as Gitler had - to destroy seized territories and occupy these territories with its citizens.
GiantToad666 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Albertanator Please give me the links about starving german POWs by soviets as german did with soviet. Give me the links about massacre of german POWs as german did in Babiy Yar in Kiev.
Nonethelles - Soviet Union under Stalin`s command liberated Europe from nazism. Stalin`s regime had not goals as Gitler had - to destroy seized territories and occupy these territories with its citizens.
GiantToad666 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Albertanator Please give me the links about starving german POWs by soviets as german did with soviet. Give me the links about massacre of german POWs as german did in Babiy Yar in Kiev.
Nonethelles - Soviet Union under Stalin`s command liberated Europe from nazism. Stalin`s regime had not goals as Gitler had - to destroy seized territories and occupy these territories with its citizens.
GiantToad666 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@ollo1982 The Russians actually lost just under 20 million soldiers and civilians, including around 2 million prisoners of war, 1 million of those were shot. 1 million german prisoners were killed by the soviets.
xGODZILLAFIREFOXx 5 months ago
Yeah, it's definitely hard to understate the Soviet losses in this conflict. If you combine all the American deaths, from all causes, in all the wars we've ever fought, they don't add up to half the Soviet soldiers who died in German POW camps during World War II.
Dnepro12 4 months ago
@superfuzz80 .......I know....80% of all german military casualties were on the eastern front..............
24zingo 11 months ago
@superfuzz80 i read a book called WW2 eastern front well that book said 3 million deaths in russia 1.5 millon in germant [im not saying ur wrong] just thats what i heard
modernlegocombat1 11 months ago
we must give our lives for the preservation of our reich
POOPDAWGjdc 1 year ago
@POOPDAWGjdc -are u still living in 1945?? I sure hope so.
Devaprakash777 1 year ago
the german pride will not falter
POOPDAWGjdc 1 year ago
Comment removed
TomHartill 1 year ago
Russians are some bad motherfuckers.
ManSmokingACigarette 1 year ago
@ManSmokingACigarette
Not Russians my friend. Ukrainians.
Vovk3 1 year ago
Guderian was perhaps the greatest strategic planner in the first half of the 20th Century. He basically created the modern war tactic of the blitzkrieg, which still exists today. This man wanted to post up further southwest of Moscow to wait out the Russian winter. Hitler overruled him, so you know what happened next.
manmanguy 1 year ago
@manmanguy this "strategic planner" should have planned for some clothes for his army and "created" tanks that can function in snow and mud. "Wait" is not an option in a Blitzkrieg.
silver610310 1 year ago
@silver610310 Well that's the problem. Hitler extended supply lines beyond repair. Even the Blitzkrieg can be made useless when overextended. Besides Blitzkrieg is merely a tactic