@orkneymist The war I said the US won was Vietnam, and I contrasted that with the loss of the peace after our part in the war was over. (and we did not win our Vietnam war by our selves, Austrialia provided an armor unit with Centurions, among others)
@orkneymist I don't think I said the US did it by ourselves, because I am truthful. Others perhaps not so much. Soviet Union lost more than a million second lieutenants in WWII, a very heavy price. The US contribution was not so much in blood, but rather in technology of industrial production 18,884 B-24s, 12,700 B-17s, airburst munition fuses, radar directed battleship gunnery, 4000 M-4 tanks sent to USSR, Ships to prevent Britain from starving, US subs that starved Japan despite bad torps
WW II may have been the last chance for the White race. Today even with all of the anti-White rip offs numerous Whites still endorse Liberalism even if it makes their World much less safe and even if their White brothers and sisters are being attacked by third World life forms. The Jews have done their job well of brainwashing the White general public into submission. For those few who still have their head screwed on right come join the National Alliance. View web type National Alliance.
It thoroughly amazes that in the age before computers and laser rangerfinders they could still destroy tanks from several kilometres aways. Actually if I recall correctly Nashorns were able to kill up to 5km away (correct me if I'm wrong with that last statement).
Well needless to say dont like nazis but you have to say the germans sure had balls (and I suppose the french 100 years earlier under Napoleon) to even think of trying to invade Russia....I read somewhere they used 35 or 6 tank DIVISIONS and lost! Insane...terrible war for all by the way, really no winners- all sides lost - lots of lives, hopefully not repeated
@the82spartans I think what "the82spartans" was saying.. look at what the Communist Vietnamese did to the south Vietnam. Also when the Allies left Vietnam it sparked an already major collision with the khemer rouge. Cambodian, Laos, Vietnam war... 100,000 of thousands died. No stability in any region = deaths to innocents.
@JuergenGDB Western civilization is civilized to a degree considering other geographical regions. I respect other Nations history and culture.. but shit.. look at Africa, and the Mid-East. Tribal leaders and religious nut jobs... The populace always suffers without stability.. Such a waste.
@JuergenGDB The cambodian genocide was closer to 1,000,000, and was caused by domestic nutjobs, eventually stopped by Vietnam. Stability and lack of external pressure allowed the nutjob Pol Pot to murder his million.
@DonMeaker Lon Nol was not the CIA's choice, that is why the "shadow government" of the USA supported Pol Pot in secrecy. The same shadow government gave its green light on the murder of President Diem of the Republic (South) Vietnam. Because Diem was too conservative, too Catholic, and too anti-Communist, the CIA wanted to get rid of him. The US troops were not allowed to win the war, and the North (secretly supported by China and the USA) was set to "win".
@DonMeaker i know the US troops won the war, but then why were they withdrawn after victory of Tet 68? the Communists were badly beaten and had nothing anymore to stand on, then their little rich elite friends got them to the negotiation table in Paris where they managed to get the US out of Vietnam. not the "Democrats" the zionist controlled media were busy breakin the morale and prestige of the troops.
@lithopoonwit Because the US is not an empire. We also left France and Germany and Japan after WWII, or came up with an agreement for our forces to stay.. We left Russia in 1919. We left Cuba, except for Guantanamo for which we paid rent. We left the Phillipines when asked by the government. Don't know much about the media either do you?
Agree. Iraq war is abit like the vietnam war. One opposition gt the technology and the latest equipment. the other knows their turf and uses guerilla tactics like the vietnamise. and wt happened in vietnam?
(Everyone on this commenting) Blah Blah Blah, I can't even watch a video about war without having to, write angry text, say "shit, dickhead, fag, loser, idiot, fuck and motherfucker" to someone, talk about irrelivent things, be rude and impose my opinion on someone!
All wars are managed conflicts in favor of commerce and banks. London caused the Russian revolution and financed Hitler, so the two would eventually clash, for the benefit of the English financial empire, at the cost of Germany and Russia. American civil war was caused by the financial institutions also. Because of outrageous tax they forced the South to secession, had nothing to do with slavery.
@lithopoonwit Wrong on facts. Russian Communist revolution was begun by Germany, to support their war aims, for the benefit of the German monarchy. ("To secure my right wing in the next war, as Hindenberg put it).
The south secession began before the tax, which never could have been passed if the southern senators/representatives had been present.
@DonMeaker ha, that's funny, the communist revolution in Russia was financed by Rotschildt, the most powerful and wealthy Jewish family in the world. Marx and Engels were german Jews. Not for the benefit of the monarchy, on the contrary. Jews hate the Christian Monarchy. That is why it were exclusively jews under command of Jacob Yurovsky, who murdered the Czar, his wife and son, and bajonetted his 4 daughter's to death.
@JuergenGDB ýes. the ashkenazy jews is a kind of mafia hiding everywhere behind false names, false companies etc. who control the military by means of bribes, drugs, homo-sexuality. who plan murders on governments, royal families, and honest good people. in other words, a mafia who wants to pervert the world.
@lithopoonwit Actually the communist revolution was run by Lenin, shipped to Russia by Germany on a sealed train. The Soviets overthrew the Kerensky government. Kerensky was blessed with long life, and was a fixture in world politics for some 70 years after that, always predicting the eminent downfall of the Soviet regime.
@nurmiar Russians are not "untermenschen". But according to jews (the same jews who killed the Tsar, and ruled the Sovietunion), all non-jews are üntermensch. it's in the Talmud for everyone to read. it was their idea.
I agree with you that banks causd these wars, but it was not British banks. If you look you can see the same old families who I don't want to name finance both sides during ww1 and 2.
@motorvating But the banks didn't cause the wars. Serbian terrorism started it with the murder of the Archduke and his wife. The Archduke had committed the sin of advocating for greater Slav rights in Austria Hungary, and that would have made it harder for Serbia to justify taking over Slav territory.
World War 2 caused the British Empire to collapse, and the USA Empire to rise on lend lease loans.
To suggest Britain profited out of WW2 flies in the face of the facts. World War 2 bankrupted Britain, and Britain has only managed to pay back WW2 debts to the USA in the last 5 years.
@lithopoonwit Your history is way off! I am a WWII historian. Germany was forced into war with Europe because of WWI. The world demanded trillions in reparations that destroyed Germany's economy. Had the Germans been allowed to flourish after WWI, Hitler would never have had enough support to become Chancellor of Germany & then later dictator. . .
@lithopoonwit i don't see how you can say britain caused the russian revolution? they did, after all, send an invasion force to archangel as part of the western imperialist support for the counter-revolution..
@lithopoonwit So where was the gain for t he English financial Empire, as Second World War ended in fact the british empire? And by the way... the russian revolution nearly cost the allies the victory of ww I.... Check your facts mate... and do not indulge in idology
@lithopoonwit Nice but some footage seems to be training scenario since at start the STG seems to be having the muzzle of barrel closed, not usually happens when in battle!!!
He raped Kuwait when they invaded it but everyone forget's that fact. He invaded Iran & his sons would of continued the carnage for decades to come.
The world & region are better off without him regardless of what BIG MEDIA or any lefty Professor says about GWB. 5000 men, women & children gassed by his General "Chemical" Ali. I clearly remember video of dead left in the streets, babies still in their mothers arms. I'm glad he is dead.
Im not shedding a tear or even supporting what he did, but you have to give him credit
he was ruler of iraq since the 50s and kept that shithole of a place together. why? because he was a ruthless dictator and the people were terrified of him. democracy doesnt work over in the middle east, look whats happened since weve captured and killed saddam, iraq is a far worse place then it was before. saddam was evil, but he was a necessary evil
A leader that rules by fear, intimidation & by killing his own people is nothing to admire.
If the Iraqi's can't handle the new found democracy, then indeed they'll get another leader like Saddam and this war will be a complete waste.
I think more time is needed to see if they get legs for the new found freedom. The next generation may not be so accepting of a despot in charge of them.
thats the thing though, democracy has existed before in the middle east and they eradicated and overthrew those who started the democracy
in the 1870s Europeans came over, started colonies, and quote "civilized" the peoples of the middle east
after no more than 70 years that colonies had been there, the colonies were overthrown and the states went back to the the old ways the middle east had been in since 3000 BC
dont give democracy to those who dont appreciate it
The world does not stand still and the Middle East is constantly in changing along with the world. We say that the middle east will never be at peace in because it has never been at peace in our lifetime. They same could have been said by a European in 1945, but since then Europe has been in a relative state of peace. You also have to consider that Iraq and the other former possessions of the Ottoman only had from 1919 to the forties to become "civilized," Europeans had centuries
You have a point there....but then again, if you think about, the world has never been peaceful. Europe certainly has not been peaceful since 1945, on the contrary, its been downright bloody.
the IRA terrorist cells in ireland and england, the soviet bloc states, right across from the free european states, the kosovo conflict, the romanian revolution, Croatian war of independence, the Chechen conflicts, the georgian conflict, the south ossetian war
I hope America loses the Iraq war, so they might learn their lesson about being a nosey country, and be humiliated by being beating by people who wear sandals and rags for clothes, when they have the most sdvanced military in the world.
I'm NOT a terrorist, communist, Nazi or U.S. hater, I think the American people are good people, but their government is a lieing and evil one.
Maybe people in the Middle-East just realised what a scam democracy was? I could be wrong.
See, your so ignorant, you seriously think you've created an honest democracy in Iraq and 'liberated' the people, but once you move out, all your progress there will collapse, seriously, BTW, heres a bit of 'American democracy' for you, for the last 100 years your government has supported corrupt regimes that silence you politcal enemies in other countries and when George Bush Jr. asked the UN (via a popular vote) to invade iraq, the majority didn't support you! And you still went in.
Wha...? You assume too much. I did not state that we've ( the USA) 'created' anything in Iraq. I will say the obvious that we eliminated a tyrant and replaced it with an empowered Republic.
If our effort at the end collapes you will jump for joy. If it does not, you would then also jump for joy?
Thanks for history lesson. In the end this type of war & political action has been going on for entire history of mankind.
Ok, I will not jump for joy if you guys lose, because that is an insult to the soldiers who died in vien. You know I still feel sorry for those soldiers who died for that shitty government.
However, I will be glad it's over.
No I'm not a Socialist or Liberal.
To my knowledge America has been 'buying' it s friends for 100 years.
Did you know 67% of U.S. Soldiers who experience war (and live), turn against war, so ask them about it.
@the82spartans Good Lord almighty! You certainly are a stupid one aren't you? It doesn't matter if we had a million men in Iraq - we LOST. Search on youtube for the objectives the criminal Bush set out when we invaded. Less than 10% of those objectives have been met. Even the "new" objectives he put in place years later to save face still failed!!! We are drawing down forces and will leave Iraq having lost the war - very similar to Vietnam. We lost that war way before 1975.
@the82spartans The free Iraqi people won by kicking our asses out of their country. You will see what happens to the puppet gov. we set up there and the collaborators. Unfortunately we've been slowly letting a big number of Iraqi collaborators immigrate the U.S. already. When we completely pull out there is going to be a HUGE number of Iraqi collaborators coming here - just like the S. Vietnamese came after we lost there too. Open a fucking book you douche.
But then again you may be the one who will see otherwise.
So its the 'HUGE' number of 'collaborators' that will show up as you say as did the S. Vietnamese did... what's you're beef? What did they do but escape being killed by the North Viet Cong?
Did I miss some sort of retribution from the S. Vietnamese immigrants here in the States or are you suggesting a jihad instead of assimilation? Either way WTF?
What the hell are you talking about millions of people get killed. Get your head out of your ass. When we leave Iraq, and we are pulling out now, the free Iraqis will immediately topple the puppet gov. and there will probably be a few thousand traitors executed. And this is the way it should be of course. If we were occupied by a criminal foreign power, I would kill those traitors that alligned themselves with the criminal foreign power occupying my country.
Tja; wären sie doch besser mal früher gefallen oder gleich bei ihren Familien geblieben, aber nein mussten ja in Russland einmarschieren, dort Millionen an Zivilisten umbringen und sich dann wundern dass die Russen ihre Frauen und Kinder schänden. Tolle Armee, grössenwahnsinnige Versager.
Obviously you're a Republican. Jimmy Carter is not even close to being the worst president. There are about two dozen presidents that were far worse.
George W. Bush, Warren G. Harding, James Buchanan, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan (Bush, Reagan and Nixon hold the records for creating the highest deficits in US history), Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, among many, many more. These presidents were all worse than Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter was a bad president, but he wasn't the worst.
Yes, I see that now, Deltaego. Conservatism in the US is not the same as Canada.
By the way, I don't think you can't judge a US President for shit if you believe Jimmy Carter was a good President. If this was true, he would have had two terms, and not defeated by Reagan, to whom you regarded earlier as a poor US President.
No offence meant and thanks. It just is what it is.
There is nothing Conservative about the Republican party. It's a collective of religious nutjobs, talkshow crazies and warmongerers that don't seem to have a problem with bankrupting their country just to attack another nation without justification.
The Conservative Party (Canada) advocates fiscal responsibility, personal freedom and diplomacy.
American Conservatism (NeoConservatism) is closely related to Conservatism in 1930s Europe.
I agree the GOP lost leadership & the balls to be fiscally conservative. GW Bush spent too much to placate the left. He spent more $ on Education than Clinton did, & that's a lot!
Most Republicans resemble nothing of which you speak. We are honest, hardworking people.
Obama's PORKULIS spending bill dwarfs ALL before it. It is GIGANITIC Fed. Govt. & his administration is Fascism by definition.
Iraq had tons of uranium yellow cake, A.K.A WMD's.
But your troops were raped in the ass in Mogadishu ait? And you are dreaming of beeing raped by the 82 spartans ait? You are retarded and you have no idea of history. You are talking about war like a five year old who think its fun. Winning a war means having a victory and positive result so please explain me how your country profits in vietnam or Irak. An army could win every battle and still loose a war look at Hannibal(not the Antony Hopkins one)
Whoa there, Menschinfrined! That's a little harsh to say such rhetoric.
Mogadishu?
U mean to say: Bill Clinton's administration did NOT send Armor, they claimed it would look like a US 'occupying force', thus the decision not to give any armor support. Bad move.
Not an example of US ass kicking as the commander in chief was a pussy to begin with.
Still, that don't change the fact we have been ass kicking for years. You just show example of weak US President, like Obama. lol.
Why the hell don't I learn stuff like this in school. All we learn is the American side of the war. I mean, just by looking on wikipedia, i learned more stuff from reading a few entries, then i did in a year of an American History class.
while i do have the military channel. I prefer to read stuff on this then watch it (cept these videos, they are amazing). You know any good sites which has as much infomation as wikipedia thats factual?
WW2 was decided on the eastern front. If one looks at how much Germany had committed to the eastern front, it is easy to understand. A big reason why the allies waited till 1944 to invade Europe was because Germany had to be weak from its defeats on the eastern front 1st or they would of lost on the beachhead. Not taking anything away from invasion of Normandy, it was still a gamble on the beaches .
Hitler also made a mistake by not putting full funds for Rommel to make a proper defence along the western coast. And also by not giving Rommel full credit for his military intellect. If Hitler gave Rommel the full resources, the war would have surely lasted longer, but defeat could not be evaded at all, germany would have lost the war either way.
Well some of thats questionable, Rommel's supply lines were so long that even if Germany had sent more they would not have been able to support them. he should have forced the British out of the Mediterranean anyhow so that the British would have been forced to go around the Cape of Good Hope, that would have hurt the allies a lot. also remember that Hitler was counting on the Japanese to attack Russia as well, when they did not the Russians moved their forces to the eastern front
You kicked there ass in World War 2? the USA kicked germany's ass in World War 2? you make me laugh Germany lost on the eastern frontnot the western front, the USSR beat germany, not the USA all the USA did was clean up the scraps in France, that is hardly a major victory, If not for the USSR beating back the Germans, and making the German high command send more and more divisions to the east the allied invasion would not have worked.
Yes and because the americans were to lazy to fight these fanatics they drop two nukes. In WW2 the US fights just the sad rest of a former dangerous german army and that still costs the life of 170.000 US soldiers. thats three times more than they loose in pacific war.
I´ve never seen a yank kick ass anywhere. I´ve only seen a yank getting his ass kicked. What war has USA won? Vietnam? The gulf? 8years in afganistan and 6 in Iraq but still no victory. Oh yes you defeated the japs in asia. And the british in year 1 and two. Think about the figures. 3,5mill german troops in east and barely 350k in west. Those 350k were boyscouts and old men recruited to wehrmacht. USSR beat Germany single handedly.
Vietnam? we just came in to aid the French, then they bailed out on us. Iraq? every uniform solder is dead or surrendered. and Afganistan? we were good friends with afganistan, who do you think taught osama how to fight? who do you think show them how to beat the russian?
Suicidebombers here, suicidebombers there, a victory you say? USarmy troops get killed, NATO troops get killed, UN troops get killed, civilians get killed.
Your friendship with mujahadin in the 80´s didn´t prevent you from attacking afganistan.
The fact that Osama was trained by CIA brings up a lot of questions about the true goals of the middle-east war.
Vietnam war resulted in a USA retreat, so it was a defeat.
you said it yourself... AMERICAN History. Take some history courses at the university level. You'll learn as much history as you'd like to. A buddy of mine was the first civilian to graduate the British Land Warfare College.
This is the biggest travesty. Education, news, the entire culture assumes the world is American. Sad story. You will not know how much you are blind folded until you start visiting other countries or preferably live abroad.
I would like to know why so many Germans these days do not recognize these brave soldiers who fought that war. the others speak for all Germans were "Nazis" is meant to but the Germans themselves? about the crimes of the "Nazis" who are USA, England, France and russia for shows. committed so many crimes in his stories about the Nazis.
Because the failure of WWII had heralded in an era of shame on the Germans. The Germans, a very proud people (and rightfully so) were heavily pushed down by the allied occupation forces. As a result, they had to side with the extreme anti-nazi point of view which resulted in many changes including the dissolution of the Wehrmacht - and the misplaced idea that all German soldiers were Nazis. I agree with you that the Wehrmacht deserves full military honors for dying valiantly in combat.
I am Russian, and not from the books I know about war crimes committed by fascist effaceurs in the USSR. Fascists, cynical murderers. Only the embittered and dwarfish person can maintain a fascist ideology.
these countries (i live in the US) make it seem like they did more then they actually did in world war II, they glorify relatively smaller battles that took place on the Western front then compared to what happened on the eastern front
yes, it did take a combined effort to win the war, britain for holding the nazis at bay from 1939-1942 over britain and in africa, the US for the pacific, africa, and western front, but in all actuality, russia did alot more
not against the army, but they waited till their weapons had technological standart like the german ( sherman had no chance against the tiger^^) and then in 1944 they gave germany the last hit, it was 1/5 of the german army in france
but its good u have that opininion that the eastern front the real bangs were going on
The Russians bled more and yes, western historians often exaggerate their contribution to the war, but only if you consider purely combat with the Germans. the russians never fought on multiple fronts at the same time, unlike every other major power: from 1941-may 1945 they only fought on the eastern front, and for a few weeks they trounced the japanese in Asia. I dont mean to belittle the Russians but they did not participate in North Africa, Italy, France, Saipan, Okinawa, the battle of the
Atlantic etc. The war was not won simply because of the Russians but they did half the work, and the Western allies did the other half. Russians did not take down Italy or Japan, because Germany was of course not the single axis power involved
It's a big myth to argue that Soviet U was weak in 1941 and then - almost suddenly - got strong in 1943. The truth is much more simplier. In 1941 Luftwaffe got total air superiority in east. But especially from 1943 more and more Luftwaffe fighters had to pull to Reich, West and Italy against western allies. In autumn 1943 about 2/3 or their fighters were against US 8th Air Force. In June 1944 Luftwaffe got only ~40 serviceable fighters in Belo Russia (later some 100).
In 1941 Soviet Union had twice as much airplanes and tanks than the rest of the world together. Germans were totally surprised to face such enourmous but low-level military forces.
One finnish historician (Sampo Ahto) had wrote: "If Hilter was planning to conquer the world with 3000 tanks then what was Stalin planning to do with 30 000 tanks"?
its not about size my friend, its about quality. Most of the Russian forces were indeed bested in the field of battle in their own backyard. Sheer numbers in addition to the horrible supply lines and terribly cold winter (that the Wehrmacht was unprepared for) resulted in the destruction of the Ostfront Wehrmacht forces. Do not forget, the Germans still held a near 3:1 Kill/death ratio on the eastern front in infantry combat and 10:1 armored combat.
This ratio of losses due to the fact that the Germans attacked the Soviet Union, suddenly, without declaration of war. But the most important thing is not how the war began, more importantly than it ended. After the war, Germany was divided and humiliated.
The Germans fought a war on multiple fronts across several thousand mile supply lines with inadequate winter clothing. In no way, shape, or form were the Russian out-fighting the Germans. In the end, sheer numbers of meat and metal shields proved victorious...however had the battle been a 1 front war for the Germans - I believe it would have ended MUCH differently. Surprise attack of not, the Germans outflanked, and outmaneuvered the Soviets until Stalingrad.
Im not arguing "ma82fo" the fact that the Russians did not produce enough, Im just saying they recieved equipment when they most desperatly needed it to remain in the fight. They recieved crucial equipment, at crucial times, maybe the Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine should have hammered them harder up north... If Rommel took Alexandria with enough equipment it probably would have brought Turkey into the war with about 4 million troops.
as a major is history, and keen on all of ww2... the only chance genrmany had to defeat russia were in the years of 41-42... after that russian factories were just spweing out way to many t-34's for the nazi regime to handle, and dont forget they were fighting on mutiple fronts. If rommel did catch alexandria, it would have serously damaged the british critical supply route of valuable cargo war and basic materials, turkey really didnt matter.
Actually Turkey did matter. The problem was that Germany was aligned to Romania and Hungary, and Turkey did not really like either that much. Had Germany swayed the Turks by 1942, it would have put a damper on the Caucuses. 4 million troops is still 4 million.
I will not argue that the T34 was an important tank for Russia, however in critical moments the Russians were supplied with equipment, and they used it as a stop gap before Russia could mass produce in 1943. Had the germans taken Stalingrad in 1942 it would have severely hampared the USSR. but insight is the mother of all evils. As usual the argument could go back and forth.. woulda shoulda coulda...
JuergenGDB: You are right that the USSR used allied Tanks, but the vast majority of the Tanks in the Red Army was made in the Soviet Union. The fact is that Allied Tanks where rubbish compared to the Soviet T-34 and the difference in muddy/snowy terrain was even greater. The biggest contribution to the Red Army from the Allies was instead food and jeeps/trucks/halftracks.
There where no Tank Battles during Operation Barbarossa. The Red Army didn´t organize 'Tank Armies' until 1943 when the famous Tank Battle of Kursk took place. In 1941-42 they used Tanks like the french and distributed them among the Infantry Armies.
No friend. The long barreled 50mm L/60 cannon was not in production at 1941 but rather produced and fielded from 1942 to 1943. So this anachronism calls into question the authenticity of the clip as a footage of the invasion. I am suspecting that the Reich propaganda ministry edited films from different battles into one movie and pretended that this is 1941 invasion.
OK, but what the hell is that panzer on the left of the frame at 0:31? It looks like a Panzer Mark III with the long barreled 50mm gun to me, but that model had no businesses hanging arround during Operation Barbarossa.
Sigh. Will this "who did the most to deafeat Hitler Germany" discussion never end. The fact is that it took the combined forces of Great Britain (inc Commonwealth), USA and the USSR to defeat Germany and her allies.
The USSR did fight through about 80 % of the German Armed Forces to reach Berlin and they did loose 50 % of the total man losses in WW2 (25 million out of 50 million), but it was a COMBINED effort by the Allies that won the war.
I am not jewish. I am russian. Stalin was not jewish. He was georgian. There are a lot of jews in White Army and in the Red Army. But White Army leaders were chatterers, they betrayed Nickolay II. 7 million in Ukraine? It is a delirium. What source did you use?
I don't know what source he uses, i only know what my grand mother told me? the whole villages were destroyed in Poltava Kharkov and other regions, because all food they had was taken from them to help stop starvation in Povoljie, another communist bullshit.
How old are you? And how old is your grandmother? And if she lived in Poltava or Kharkov(70% of russians), she cant know anything about Povoljie(my grandmother from there).
Wrong facts:) Germans killed 26 millions russians, and Stalin killed about 700000 citizens(Russian historic archives) at 1927-1953. White Army... why? Do you know ideology of White Army? They were assemblage of parties(kadeti,eseri,oktyabristi) who lose the battle with commie.(eseri were terrorists
stop argueing shitheads... its a youtube video do you realize how stupid you sound?
MyNameIsDuffmarn 8 months ago
@MyNameIsDuffmarn isn't it sickening? Just about every single vid on youtube has idiots arguing. what a waste of time, space, etc...
spiraling69 7 months ago
This is great footage.
MrGeneralJB 9 months ago
The greatest theater of battle of all time. The best tanks (T-34, Panzers, Tigers) pitted against each other.
tshenvideos 10 months ago
oh je oh je, ich hätte mir in die Hosen gemmacht....
TimJuergenFaust 1 year ago
@orkneymist The war I said the US won was Vietnam, and I contrasted that with the loss of the peace after our part in the war was over. (and we did not win our Vietnam war by our selves, Austrialia provided an armor unit with Centurions, among others)
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@orkneymist I don't think I said the US did it by ourselves, because I am truthful. Others perhaps not so much. Soviet Union lost more than a million second lieutenants in WWII, a very heavy price. The US contribution was not so much in blood, but rather in technology of industrial production 18,884 B-24s, 12,700 B-17s, airburst munition fuses, radar directed battleship gunnery, 4000 M-4 tanks sent to USSR, Ships to prevent Britain from starving, US subs that starved Japan despite bad torps
DonMeaker 1 year ago
The Eastern Front, always referred to in Hogan's Heroes...
sanclementekid 1 year ago
WW II may have been the last chance for the White race. Today even with all of the anti-White rip offs numerous Whites still endorse Liberalism even if it makes their World much less safe and even if their White brothers and sisters are being attacked by third World life forms. The Jews have done their job well of brainwashing the White general public into submission. For those few who still have their head screwed on right come join the National Alliance. View web type National Alliance.
MrBEB123 1 year ago
@MrBEB123
Go fuck yerself. Noone will miss you when your gone dickhead.
FredDude27 1 year ago
Die russischen untermenschen WON the war
nurmiar 1 year ago
It thoroughly amazes that in the age before computers and laser rangerfinders they could still destroy tanks from several kilometres aways. Actually if I recall correctly Nashorns were able to kill up to 5km away (correct me if I'm wrong with that last statement).
TokyoXer 1 year ago
@olo232 maybe has something to do with oil pipe lines in the area. war is expensive, and is seldom waged for ideology alone.
lithopoonwit 1 year ago
Your all a bunch of fuking freaks!
Nebelwerfer89 1 year ago
loll the russian tanks explode better than most tanks becuase the russians want to go out with a bang.
funnyfella55 1 year ago 2
tanks are tottally beatable now your just as vulnerable as an infantry men now tanks are tin cans of death but they are bad ass
jayleencc 1 year ago
Well needless to say dont like nazis but you have to say the germans sure had balls (and I suppose the french 100 years earlier under Napoleon) to even think of trying to invade Russia....I read somewhere they used 35 or 6 tank DIVISIONS and lost! Insane...terrible war for all by the way, really no winners- all sides lost - lots of lives, hopefully not repeated
RadioXLosAngeles 1 year ago
Wow, tanks are cool but not invincible.
Please check out my videos by searching ricktvpass.
ricktv2009 1 year ago
What 'happened to Vietnam'?
Seafood from Vietnam is sold in USA... so what gives?
No fire fight lost by USA in S.E. Asia.
Look it up.
the82spartans 2 years ago
lies..
ohnzee 1 year ago
@the82spartans I think what "the82spartans" was saying.. look at what the Communist Vietnamese did to the south Vietnam. Also when the Allies left Vietnam it sparked an already major collision with the khemer rouge. Cambodian, Laos, Vietnam war... 100,000 of thousands died. No stability in any region = deaths to innocents.
JuergenGDB 1 year ago
@JuergenGDB Western civilization is civilized to a degree considering other geographical regions. I respect other Nations history and culture.. but shit.. look at Africa, and the Mid-East. Tribal leaders and religious nut jobs... The populace always suffers without stability.. Such a waste.
JuergenGDB 1 year ago
@JuergenGDB
Yes, that was my point...spot on.
Thanks to you, and cheers.
the82spartans 1 year ago
@JuergenGDB The cambodian genocide was closer to 1,000,000, and was caused by domestic nutjobs, eventually stopped by Vietnam. Stability and lack of external pressure allowed the nutjob Pol Pot to murder his million.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker don't forget who put this nutjob Pol Pot in power; the United States of America.
lithopoonwit 1 year ago
@lithopoonwit Wrong again. Pol Pot was a communist who fought against Lon Nol, a US Ally.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker Lon Nol was not the CIA's choice, that is why the "shadow government" of the USA supported Pol Pot in secrecy. The same shadow government gave its green light on the murder of President Diem of the Republic (South) Vietnam. Because Diem was too conservative, too Catholic, and too anti-Communist, the CIA wanted to get rid of him. The US troops were not allowed to win the war, and the North (secretly supported by China and the USA) was set to "win".
lithopoonwit 1 year ago
@lithopoonwit Really, get help. The US won the war, but the Democratic(socialist) party worked overtime to lose the peace.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker i know the US troops won the war, but then why were they withdrawn after victory of Tet 68? the Communists were badly beaten and had nothing anymore to stand on, then their little rich elite friends got them to the negotiation table in Paris where they managed to get the US out of Vietnam. not the "Democrats" the zionist controlled media were busy breakin the morale and prestige of the troops.
lithopoonwit 1 year ago
@lithopoonwit Because the US is not an empire. We also left France and Germany and Japan after WWII, or came up with an agreement for our forces to stay.. We left Russia in 1919. We left Cuba, except for Guantanamo for which we paid rent. We left the Phillipines when asked by the government. Don't know much about the media either do you?
DonMeaker 1 year ago 2
Agree. Iraq war is abit like the vietnam war. One opposition gt the technology and the latest equipment. the other knows their turf and uses guerilla tactics like the vietnamise. and wt happened in vietnam?
qaziomo91 2 years ago
(Everyone on this commenting) Blah Blah Blah, I can't even watch a video about war without having to, write angry text, say "shit, dickhead, fag, loser, idiot, fuck and motherfucker" to someone, talk about irrelivent things, be rude and impose my opinion on someone!
BTW nice video.
VitaminsAndPiss 2 years ago
Are you mad?????????????????
REDCAER 2 years ago
All wars are managed conflicts in favor of commerce and banks. London caused the Russian revolution and financed Hitler, so the two would eventually clash, for the benefit of the English financial empire, at the cost of Germany and Russia. American civil war was caused by the financial institutions also. Because of outrageous tax they forced the South to secession, had nothing to do with slavery.
lithopoonwit 2 years ago 14
Slavery had something to do with it. But it was not the only reason.
hannigan06 2 years ago 2
Good point mate!
VitaminsAndPiss 2 years ago
@lithopoonwit Wrong on facts. Russian Communist revolution was begun by Germany, to support their war aims, for the benefit of the German monarchy. ("To secure my right wing in the next war, as Hindenberg put it).
The south secession began before the tax, which never could have been passed if the southern senators/representatives had been present.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@DonMeaker ha, that's funny, the communist revolution in Russia was financed by Rotschildt, the most powerful and wealthy Jewish family in the world. Marx and Engels were german Jews. Not for the benefit of the monarchy, on the contrary. Jews hate the Christian Monarchy. That is why it were exclusively jews under command of Jacob Yurovsky, who murdered the Czar, his wife and son, and bajonetted his 4 daughter's to death.
lithopoonwit 1 year ago
@lithopoonwit Is this one of the reasons why everyone hates jews
JuergenGDB 1 year ago
@JuergenGDB It is another bad reason, based on no evidence, based on lies.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@JuergenGDB ýes. the ashkenazy jews is a kind of mafia hiding everywhere behind false names, false companies etc. who control the military by means of bribes, drugs, homo-sexuality. who plan murders on governments, royal families, and honest good people. in other words, a mafia who wants to pervert the world.
lithopoonwit 1 year ago
@lithopoonwit Actually the communist revolution was run by Lenin, shipped to Russia by Germany on a sealed train. The Soviets overthrew the Kerensky government. Kerensky was blessed with long life, and was a fixture in world politics for some 70 years after that, always predicting the eminent downfall of the Soviet regime.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@lithopoonwit Russia won the war..."die russischen untermenschen" won the war...Germany LOST
nurmiar 1 year ago
@nurmiar Russians are not "untermenschen". But according to jews (the same jews who killed the Tsar, and ruled the Sovietunion), all non-jews are üntermensch. it's in the Talmud for everyone to read. it was their idea.
lithopoonwit 1 year ago
@lithopoonwit Sverdlosk was the guy who was responsible for killing the Czar.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@lithopoonwit
I agree with you that banks causd these wars, but it was not British banks. If you look you can see the same old families who I don't want to name finance both sides during ww1 and 2.
motorvating 1 year ago
@motorvating But the banks didn't cause the wars. Serbian terrorism started it with the murder of the Archduke and his wife. The Archduke had committed the sin of advocating for greater Slav rights in Austria Hungary, and that would have made it harder for Serbia to justify taking over Slav territory.
DonMeaker 1 year ago
@lithopoonwit Historical materialism much? You could make a living 'teaching' in the People's Republic of China, they sure like marxists.
4dIer 1 year ago
@lithopoonwit
World War 2 caused the British Empire to collapse, and the USA Empire to rise on lend lease loans.
To suggest Britain profited out of WW2 flies in the face of the facts. World War 2 bankrupted Britain, and Britain has only managed to pay back WW2 debts to the USA in the last 5 years.
easypeasy2 1 year ago
@lithopoonwit Your history is way off! I am a WWII historian. Germany was forced into war with Europe because of WWI. The world demanded trillions in reparations that destroyed Germany's economy. Had the Germans been allowed to flourish after WWI, Hitler would never have had enough support to become Chancellor of Germany & then later dictator. . .
MrDarkmarius 1 year ago
@lithopoonwit
yup its all about money ,it will be the ruin of the human race ....
COLT1769 11 months ago 3
@lithopoonwit i don't see how you can say britain caused the russian revolution? they did, after all, send an invasion force to archangel as part of the western imperialist support for the counter-revolution..
mikjmurf1973 11 months ago
@mikjmurf1973 lol, don't feed the troll
Panzerwurfer 10 months ago
@lithopoonwit yea, and you forgot the Illuminati are controlling the world by poisoning Coca-Cola supplies
Panzerwurfer 10 months ago
@lithopoonwit So where was the gain for t he English financial Empire, as Second World War ended in fact the british empire? And by the way... the russian revolution nearly cost the allies the victory of ww I.... Check your facts mate... and do not indulge in idology
stonefacejackson 9 months ago 7
@stonefacejackson ask Rotschild
batalion666 3 months ago
@lithopoonwit Nice but some footage seems to be training scenario since at start the STG seems to be having the muzzle of barrel closed, not usually happens when in battle!!!
thekcra 6 months ago
Comment removed
TheHIV123 1 week ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@lithopoonwit I find it funny how tenuous your grasp on history is.
TheHIV123 1 week ago
No one should shed a tear for Saddam Hussein.
He raped Kuwait when they invaded it but everyone forget's that fact. He invaded Iran & his sons would of continued the carnage for decades to come.
The world & region are better off without him regardless of what BIG MEDIA or any lefty Professor says about GWB. 5000 men, women & children gassed by his General "Chemical" Ali. I clearly remember video of dead left in the streets, babies still in their mothers arms. I'm glad he is dead.
the82spartans 2 years ago 2
Yeah he invaded Iran, funded and supplied by the USA...you idiot.
xpat73 2 years ago
Perhaps some Intel & not much else in terms of munitions, troops, advisors, weapons, fuel, navy power nor any air cover.
Face it. A few satellite pictures and you want to be a cry baby about it.
Iran was then and still is at odds with our country.
War makes strange bed fellows, as the old saying goes.
You sir, are the idiot.
Please move from our United States if you hate her so much. We would all luv you for it & you seem to need some luv.
Signed,
The rest of America
the82spartans 2 years ago
Im not shedding a tear or even supporting what he did, but you have to give him credit
he was ruler of iraq since the 50s and kept that shithole of a place together. why? because he was a ruthless dictator and the people were terrified of him. democracy doesnt work over in the middle east, look whats happened since weve captured and killed saddam, iraq is a far worse place then it was before. saddam was evil, but he was a necessary evil
controlusplease 2 years ago
Why give credit to a tyrant just for being one?
A leader that rules by fear, intimidation & by killing his own people is nothing to admire.
If the Iraqi's can't handle the new found democracy, then indeed they'll get another leader like Saddam and this war will be a complete waste.
I think more time is needed to see if they get legs for the new found freedom. The next generation may not be so accepting of a despot in charge of them.
the82spartans 2 years ago
thats the thing though, democracy has existed before in the middle east and they eradicated and overthrew those who started the democracy
in the 1870s Europeans came over, started colonies, and quote "civilized" the peoples of the middle east
after no more than 70 years that colonies had been there, the colonies were overthrown and the states went back to the the old ways the middle east had been in since 3000 BC
dont give democracy to those who dont appreciate it
controlusplease 2 years ago
You make an excellent point.
Stange land.
the82spartans 2 years ago
The world does not stand still and the Middle East is constantly in changing along with the world. We say that the middle east will never be at peace in because it has never been at peace in our lifetime. They same could have been said by a European in 1945, but since then Europe has been in a relative state of peace. You also have to consider that Iraq and the other former possessions of the Ottoman only had from 1919 to the forties to become "civilized," Europeans had centuries
panzertiger2000 2 years ago
You have a point there....but then again, if you think about, the world has never been peaceful. Europe certainly has not been peaceful since 1945, on the contrary, its been downright bloody.
the IRA terrorist cells in ireland and england, the soviet bloc states, right across from the free european states, the kosovo conflict, the romanian revolution, Croatian war of independence, the Chechen conflicts, the georgian conflict, the south ossetian war
all conflicts with casualties of 1000 and up
controlusplease 2 years ago
Read full comment:
I hope America loses the Iraq war, so they might learn their lesson about being a nosey country, and be humiliated by being beating by people who wear sandals and rags for clothes, when they have the most sdvanced military in the world.
I'm NOT a terrorist, communist, Nazi or U.S. hater, I think the American people are good people, but their government is a lieing and evil one.
Maybe people in the Middle-East just realised what a scam democracy was? I could be wrong.
VitaminsAndPiss 2 years ago
V&P... loose a war to learn a lesson? That may be the oddest reasoning I had heard in a long... long time.
Iraq is already over with anyway... The US won... much to the chagrin of Harry Reid. The battle for Afghanistan had been underway for some time.
Democracy a 'scam' eh?
Hmmmm. For over 225 years America had outlasted many, many other regimes while our Democracy stood the test of time. Evil? Ah. no.
Not sure what you mean but maybe you're a socialist?
Too bad.
the82spartans 2 years ago
See, your so ignorant, you seriously think you've created an honest democracy in Iraq and 'liberated' the people, but once you move out, all your progress there will collapse, seriously, BTW, heres a bit of 'American democracy' for you, for the last 100 years your government has supported corrupt regimes that silence you politcal enemies in other countries and when George Bush Jr. asked the UN (via a popular vote) to invade iraq, the majority didn't support you! And you still went in.
Serf.
VitaminsAndPiss 2 years ago
Wha...? You assume too much. I did not state that we've ( the USA) 'created' anything in Iraq. I will say the obvious that we eliminated a tyrant and replaced it with an empowered Republic.
If our effort at the end collapes you will jump for joy. If it does not, you would then also jump for joy?
Thanks for history lesson. In the end this type of war & political action has been going on for entire history of mankind.
Last 100 years... hell last 225.
USA! USA! USA!
the82spartans 2 years ago
Ok, I will not jump for joy if you guys lose, because that is an insult to the soldiers who died in vien. You know I still feel sorry for those soldiers who died for that shitty government.
However, I will be glad it's over.
No I'm not a Socialist or Liberal.
To my knowledge America has been 'buying' it s friends for 100 years.
Did you know 67% of U.S. Soldiers who experience war (and live), turn against war, so ask them about it.
BTW left a nice comment on your home page, enjoy.
VitaminsAndPiss 2 years ago
V&P: Too bad you're an American Hater. It's a great country regardless of what you think of her.
I suppose German soldiers die in vein as well? I don't believe that.
Anarchist or commie then?
We give tons of tax money to other nations by treaty and donate by charities millions more. If that buying friends, or just being friendly?
Had you been to Normandy to see the graves of the US fallen? Is that buying friends with blood?
Berlin Air lift... is that 'buying' friends, too?
the82spartans 2 years ago
Yeah the Berlin Airlift was actully 'buying' friends, I read a book all about the scandal of that.
BTW I'm actully from Australia. Idiot.
VitaminsAndPiss 2 years ago
I know A&P...thus the word 'mate' was inserted into my message to you. Are you so dense?
I'm surprised you try to claim you read books but no such book exists as you say, anyway.
You didn't stick to youre no swearing policies.... Anarchy in your brain or drunk again?
I am special to get such nice treatment from an anti-American hater.
Congratulations on being the biggest prick from Down under. First prize for a classy individual.
Merry Christmas, Prick & fuck you very much!
the82spartans 2 years ago
@the82spartans We lost the war in Iraw you dumbass. Get your head out of your ass.
Robert111 2 years ago
Thanks man!
VitaminsAndPiss 2 years ago
You mean Iraq, dumbass?
Hmmm... If we lost why as you say, why so many troops in Iraq at this very moment?
Perhaps you're the one that is blinded by the fact your head is up you're ass... it does explain the crap coming out of your mouth.
Well... At least Harry Reid has one fan.
So I guess if we lost you think that Saddam won?
BAUHAHAHAHAHHAHABOOOOOOO!
the82spartans 2 years ago
@the82spartans Good Lord almighty! You certainly are a stupid one aren't you? It doesn't matter if we had a million men in Iraq - we LOST. Search on youtube for the objectives the criminal Bush set out when we invaded. Less than 10% of those objectives have been met. Even the "new" objectives he put in place years later to save face still failed!!! We are drawing down forces and will leave Iraq having lost the war - very similar to Vietnam. We lost that war way before 1975.
Robert111 2 years ago
You mean the Paris Peace Accords? 1974?
Political objectives are not military objectives to won and lost is a matter of perspective.
PS
Nothing is like Vietnam in terms of warfare.
the82spartans 2 years ago
@the82spartans The free Iraqi people won by kicking our asses out of their country. You will see what happens to the puppet gov. we set up there and the collaborators. Unfortunately we've been slowly letting a big number of Iraqi collaborators immigrate the U.S. already. When we completely pull out there is going to be a HUGE number of Iraqi collaborators coming here - just like the S. Vietnamese came after we lost there too. Open a fucking book you douche.
Robert111 2 years ago
Perhaps.
But then again you may be the one who will see otherwise.
So its the 'HUGE' number of 'collaborators' that will show up as you say as did the S. Vietnamese did... what's you're beef? What did they do but escape being killed by the North Viet Cong?
Did I miss some sort of retribution from the S. Vietnamese immigrants here in the States or are you suggesting a jihad instead of assimilation? Either way WTF?
Are you high?
the82spartans 2 years ago
Oh, yeah we should leave so that millions of people get killed, like in SE Asia as you say.
USpatriotz 2 years ago
What the hell are you talking about millions of people get killed. Get your head out of your ass. When we leave Iraq, and we are pulling out now, the free Iraqis will immediately topple the puppet gov. and there will probably be a few thousand traitors executed. And this is the way it should be of course. If we were occupied by a criminal foreign power, I would kill those traitors that alligned themselves with the criminal foreign power occupying my country.
Robert111 2 years ago
@VitaminsAndPiss Very wise comments you have written here. Very wise.
Robert111 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Tja; wären sie doch besser mal früher gefallen oder gleich bei ihren Familien geblieben, aber nein mussten ja in Russland einmarschieren, dort Millionen an Zivilisten umbringen und sich dann wundern dass die Russen ihre Frauen und Kinder schänden. Tolle Armee, grössenwahnsinnige Versager.
rantanplan36 2 years ago
Jimmy Carter also a weak US President.
He may be the worst EVER. He sure is in my lifetime.
Ha, haw, haw.
Carter.... lol.
the82spartans 2 years ago
Obviously you're a Republican. Jimmy Carter is not even close to being the worst president. There are about two dozen presidents that were far worse.
George W. Bush, Warren G. Harding, James Buchanan, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan (Bush, Reagan and Nixon hold the records for creating the highest deficits in US history), Herbert Hoover, Calvin Coolidge, among many, many more. These presidents were all worse than Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter was a bad president, but he wasn't the worst.
Deltaego 2 years ago
Yes, & you are a Democrat & I believe Jimmy was the worst of my lifetime. My favorite "tear down this wall" is Regan.
Harding is easy on any worst list, as well Buchannan.
Nixon is only remembered for one thing: Watergate. Too bad, he opened up China so now they own our debt, you can't blame him. EPA was his too.
Coolidge. OK, so what. Too much History Channel for you too?
JC called us all racists if anyone who is white opposes the Bamster.
"W" derangement syndrome! lol
the82spartans 2 years ago
No, I'm a Canadian, and a member of the Conservative Party.
Deltaego 2 years ago
Yes, I see that now, Deltaego. Conservatism in the US is not the same as Canada.
By the way, I don't think you can't judge a US President for shit if you believe Jimmy Carter was a good President. If this was true, he would have had two terms, and not defeated by Reagan, to whom you regarded earlier as a poor US President.
No offence meant and thanks. It just is what it is.
the82spartans 2 years ago
There is nothing Conservative about the Republican party. It's a collective of religious nutjobs, talkshow crazies and warmongerers that don't seem to have a problem with bankrupting their country just to attack another nation without justification.
The Conservative Party (Canada) advocates fiscal responsibility, personal freedom and diplomacy.
American Conservatism (NeoConservatism) is closely related to Conservatism in 1930s Europe.
Deltaego 2 years ago
I agree the GOP lost leadership & the balls to be fiscally conservative. GW Bush spent too much to placate the left. He spent more $ on Education than Clinton did, & that's a lot!
Most Republicans resemble nothing of which you speak. We are honest, hardworking people.
Obama's PORKULIS spending bill dwarfs ALL before it. It is GIGANITIC Fed. Govt. & his administration is Fascism by definition.
Iraq had tons of uranium yellow cake, A.K.A WMD's.
Saddam gassed 5k Kurds in 1 day.
the82spartans 2 years ago
what about the deficits under Roosevelt and Truman. Go back and read a history book moron
me2621943 2 years ago
Those were war deficits, and even then they weren't as large as the deficits from the last 50 years (inflation included).
Perhaps you should take your own advice.
Deltaego 2 years ago
b 52 bomber
Now that is an all American Ass kicker.
the82spartans 2 years ago
Maverick has been a shut in his entire life.
the82spartans 2 years ago
Actually Maverick is the only one, that makes sense here. he is using facts not oppinions
Sindiel666 2 years ago
Facts by Maverick?
Vietnam we lost ZERO firefights/battles. One may say that 'USA Didn't win' but that is as far as it goes.
Gulf War I ? We routed them & UN said 'that's enough' even though we wanted to keep ass kicking.
Iraq or Gulf War II? Do you expect to 'surge' strategy to now fail after all this time? WTF?
Did not the 'Yanks' defeat the 'Reb's' in the US Civil War? lol
Also, cold war we defeated USSR. Made them cry in their borscht.
US has been kickin' ass for years.
the82spartans 2 years ago
Iraq/Gulf War II-obama is seeing that we lose that one, and is in the process of losing in Afghanistan.
Askerban 2 years ago
BIG media are on the defeat bandwagon in Iraq & have been for years.
Idiots in the media shape the news, rather than just reporting it.
The other idiots are in Congress: "The war is lost." - Sen. Harry Reid (D) Nevada
Afghanistan is hard nut to crack, but everyone knows in TOTAL WAR, the USA would be ass-kicking anyone they wanted to.
Obama may buckle under pressure because he is a poor leader of fighting men & women.
At 9/11 speech at Pentagon, he didn't even mention them.
the82spartans 2 years ago
But your troops were raped in the ass in Mogadishu ait? And you are dreaming of beeing raped by the 82 spartans ait? You are retarded and you have no idea of history. You are talking about war like a five year old who think its fun. Winning a war means having a victory and positive result so please explain me how your country profits in vietnam or Irak. An army could win every battle and still loose a war look at Hannibal(not the Antony Hopkins one)
Menschenfreind 2 years ago
Whoa there, Menschinfrined! That's a little harsh to say such rhetoric.
Mogadishu?
U mean to say: Bill Clinton's administration did NOT send Armor, they claimed it would look like a US 'occupying force', thus the decision not to give any armor support. Bad move.
Not an example of US ass kicking as the commander in chief was a pussy to begin with.
Still, that don't change the fact we have been ass kicking for years. You just show example of weak US President, like Obama. lol.
the82spartans 2 years ago
Why the hell don't I learn stuff like this in school. All we learn is the American side of the war. I mean, just by looking on wikipedia, i learned more stuff from reading a few entries, then i did in a year of an American History class.
meatwadgunit 2 years ago 12
thats true the schools are real lop sided. dont trust wikipedia, watch the military channel.
abyssrelm 2 years ago
while i do have the military channel. I prefer to read stuff on this then watch it (cept these videos, they are amazing). You know any good sites which has as much infomation as wikipedia thats factual?
meatwadgunit 2 years ago
WW2 was decided on the eastern front. If one looks at how much Germany had committed to the eastern front, it is easy to understand. A big reason why the allies waited till 1944 to invade Europe was because Germany had to be weak from its defeats on the eastern front 1st or they would of lost on the beachhead. Not taking anything away from invasion of Normandy, it was still a gamble on the beaches .
scotter420wigb 2 years ago 8
Hitler also made a mistake by not putting full funds for Rommel to make a proper defence along the western coast. And also by not giving Rommel full credit for his military intellect. If Hitler gave Rommel the full resources, the war would have surely lasted longer, but defeat could not be evaded at all, germany would have lost the war either way.
strongfp 2 years ago
Well some of thats questionable, Rommel's supply lines were so long that even if Germany had sent more they would not have been able to support them. he should have forced the British out of the Mediterranean anyhow so that the British would have been forced to go around the Cape of Good Hope, that would have hurt the allies a lot. also remember that Hitler was counting on the Japanese to attack Russia as well, when they did not the Russians moved their forces to the eastern front
tigerbarr 2 years ago
its because we kicked there ass in ww2. now if it was the other way around, we would be learning about them
u0tube0video0critic 2 years ago
You kicked there ass in World War 2? the USA kicked germany's ass in World War 2? you make me laugh Germany lost on the eastern frontnot the western front, the USSR beat germany, not the USA all the USA did was clean up the scraps in France, that is hardly a major victory, If not for the USSR beating back the Germans, and making the German high command send more and more divisions to the east the allied invasion would not have worked.
Sindiel666 2 years ago 2
japan was twice as hard as the fuckin nazis
josephkennith 2 years ago
Yes and because the americans were to lazy to fight these fanatics they drop two nukes. In WW2 the US fights just the sad rest of a former dangerous german army and that still costs the life of 170.000 US soldiers. thats three times more than they loose in pacific war.
Menschenfreind 2 years ago
Hey simple mind, u need to do some research.
scotter420wigb 2 years ago
Maverick110290 2 years ago
Vietnam? we just came in to aid the French, then they bailed out on us. Iraq? every uniform solder is dead or surrendered. and Afganistan? we were good friends with afganistan, who do you think taught osama how to fight? who do you think show them how to beat the russian?
u0tube0video0critic 2 years ago
Suicidebombers here, suicidebombers there, a victory you say? USarmy troops get killed, NATO troops get killed, UN troops get killed, civilians get killed.
Your friendship with mujahadin in the 80´s didn´t prevent you from attacking afganistan.
The fact that Osama was trained by CIA brings up a lot of questions about the true goals of the middle-east war.
Vietnam war resulted in a USA retreat, so it was a defeat.
Maverick110290 2 years ago
you are right, but the retards wont belive you!
Did you know that in the 80`s Reagen compared the Mujaheddin with the founding fathers of the united states?
Menschenfreind 2 years ago
If it wasn't for the US and British supplies going to the USSR, the Soviets would have lost
piancu 2 years ago
Not true.
Maverick110290 2 years ago
If Hitler wasn`t such a strategic retard you would have wrote your message in german.
Menschenfreind 2 years ago
Yes, you may had be correct after all this time history was different that what reality is today.
Thank God that youre 'If Hitler' idea did not come to pass some 70 years ago.
Hugs & Kisses,
-The Maginot Line
(Opps. I mean the USAF, US Navy & Marines + US ARMY)
Did I say we are the Cold War ass kickers yet? Oh yeah... b 52. heh, heh, heh.
the82spartans 2 years ago
you said it yourself... AMERICAN History. Take some history courses at the university level. You'll learn as much history as you'd like to. A buddy of mine was the first civilian to graduate the British Land Warfare College.
Exmech2 2 years ago
This is the biggest travesty. Education, news, the entire culture assumes the world is American. Sad story. You will not know how much you are blind folded until you start visiting other countries or preferably live abroad.
lamrof 2 years ago 3
I would like to know why so many Germans these days do not recognize these brave soldiers who fought that war. the others speak for all Germans were "Nazis" is meant to but the Germans themselves? about the crimes of the "Nazis" who are USA, England, France and russia for shows. committed so many crimes in his stories about the Nazis.
and one more thing and greetings from BRAZIL!
rosafagundes 2 years ago
Because the failure of WWII had heralded in an era of shame on the Germans. The Germans, a very proud people (and rightfully so) were heavily pushed down by the allied occupation forces. As a result, they had to side with the extreme anti-nazi point of view which resulted in many changes including the dissolution of the Wehrmacht - and the misplaced idea that all German soldiers were Nazis. I agree with you that the Wehrmacht deserves full military honors for dying valiantly in combat.
biodole 2 years ago 4
I am Russian, and not from the books I know about war crimes committed by fascist effaceurs in the USSR. Fascists, cynical murderers. Only the embittered and dwarfish person can maintain a fascist ideology.
Orthodoxus777 2 years ago
ok, who was born in the UK or US?
these countries (i live in the US) make it seem like they did more then they actually did in world war II, they glorify relatively smaller battles that took place on the Western front then compared to what happened on the eastern front
yes, it did take a combined effort to win the war, britain for holding the nazis at bay from 1939-1942 over britain and in africa, the US for the pacific, africa, and western front, but in all actuality, russia did alot more
controlusplease 2 years ago 2
not against the army, but they waited till their weapons had technological standart like the german ( sherman had no chance against the tiger^^) and then in 1944 they gave germany the last hit, it was 1/5 of the german army in france
but its good u have that opininion that the eastern front the real bangs were going on
and..
i'm german^^
henrikus15 2 years ago
The Russians bled more and yes, western historians often exaggerate their contribution to the war, but only if you consider purely combat with the Germans. the russians never fought on multiple fronts at the same time, unlike every other major power: from 1941-may 1945 they only fought on the eastern front, and for a few weeks they trounced the japanese in Asia. I dont mean to belittle the Russians but they did not participate in North Africa, Italy, France, Saipan, Okinawa, the battle of the
panzertiger2000 2 years ago 2
Atlantic etc. The war was not won simply because of the Russians but they did half the work, and the Western allies did the other half. Russians did not take down Italy or Japan, because Germany was of course not the single axis power involved
panzertiger2000 2 years ago
heil camerat !
CROCEDIFERRO 2 years ago
It's a big myth to argue that Soviet U was weak in 1941 and then - almost suddenly - got strong in 1943. The truth is much more simplier. In 1941 Luftwaffe got total air superiority in east. But especially from 1943 more and more Luftwaffe fighters had to pull to Reich, West and Italy against western allies. In autumn 1943 about 2/3 or their fighters were against US 8th Air Force. In June 1944 Luftwaffe got only ~40 serviceable fighters in Belo Russia (later some 100).
tranmere789 2 years ago
To the glory of the Reich!
gopconservative78 2 years ago
We kicked your Reich's butt and buried it long time ago...
redwolftide77 2 years ago
yeah, together with america, GB, france, canada, norway, etc. pp. the whole world was necessary.
Duphe 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
soviet union SUCKS...GERMANY WAS STRONGER!!
HIEL HITLER
LordSnow14 2 years ago
In 1941 Soviet Union had twice as much airplanes and tanks than the rest of the world together. Germans were totally surprised to face such enourmous but low-level military forces.
One finnish historician (Sampo Ahto) had wrote: "If Hilter was planning to conquer the world with 3000 tanks then what was Stalin planning to do with 30 000 tanks"?
Good question, isn't it?
tranmere789 2 years ago 4
if only the soviets didn't do suicide charges through such a wast of life.
jack29292 2 years ago
its not about size my friend, its about quality. Most of the Russian forces were indeed bested in the field of battle in their own backyard. Sheer numbers in addition to the horrible supply lines and terribly cold winter (that the Wehrmacht was unprepared for) resulted in the destruction of the Ostfront Wehrmacht forces. Do not forget, the Germans still held a near 3:1 Kill/death ratio on the eastern front in infantry combat and 10:1 armored combat.
biodole 2 years ago
This ratio of losses due to the fact that the Germans attacked the Soviet Union, suddenly, without declaration of war. But the most important thing is not how the war began, more importantly than it ended. After the war, Germany was divided and humiliated.
Orthodoxus777 2 years ago
The Germans fought a war on multiple fronts across several thousand mile supply lines with inadequate winter clothing. In no way, shape, or form were the Russian out-fighting the Germans. In the end, sheer numbers of meat and metal shields proved victorious...however had the battle been a 1 front war for the Germans - I believe it would have ended MUCH differently. Surprise attack of not, the Germans outflanked, and outmaneuvered the Soviets until Stalingrad.
biodole 2 years ago 6
You can never underestimate your enemy. German high command probably was drunk when decided to attack Russia even if that would be one front war.
P.S i like wehrmacht but i hate Fashists.
vimpel360 2 years ago
Then reuinted in 1990s, while Soviet disintegrated. But somehow...the Neo Nazis managed to invade Russia ... and growing.
hatakashi1900 2 years ago
Im not arguing "ma82fo" the fact that the Russians did not produce enough, Im just saying they recieved equipment when they most desperatly needed it to remain in the fight. They recieved crucial equipment, at crucial times, maybe the Luftwaffe and Kreigsmarine should have hammered them harder up north... If Rommel took Alexandria with enough equipment it probably would have brought Turkey into the war with about 4 million troops.
JuergenGDB 2 years ago
as a major is history, and keen on all of ww2... the only chance genrmany had to defeat russia were in the years of 41-42... after that russian factories were just spweing out way to many t-34's for the nazi regime to handle, and dont forget they were fighting on mutiple fronts. If rommel did catch alexandria, it would have serously damaged the british critical supply route of valuable cargo war and basic materials, turkey really didnt matter.
eddyq6 2 years ago
Actually Turkey did matter. The problem was that Germany was aligned to Romania and Hungary, and Turkey did not really like either that much. Had Germany swayed the Turks by 1942, it would have put a damper on the Caucuses. 4 million troops is still 4 million.
JuergenGDB 2 years ago
I will not argue that the T34 was an important tank for Russia, however in critical moments the Russians were supplied with equipment, and they used it as a stop gap before Russia could mass produce in 1943. Had the germans taken Stalingrad in 1942 it would have severely hampared the USSR. but insight is the mother of all evils. As usual the argument could go back and forth.. woulda shoulda coulda...
JuergenGDB 2 years ago
все хорошо, один нюанс - победили то русские...
rjaviy 2 years ago
Еще один нюанс - победили не русские, а советские. Под Москвой костьми ложились казахи с киргизами аль забылось все уже?
redwolftide77 2 years ago
JuergenGDB: You are right that the USSR used allied Tanks, but the vast majority of the Tanks in the Red Army was made in the Soviet Union. The fact is that Allied Tanks where rubbish compared to the Soviet T-34 and the difference in muddy/snowy terrain was even greater. The biggest contribution to the Red Army from the Allies was instead food and jeeps/trucks/halftracks.
ma82fo 3 years ago
There where no Tank Battles during Operation Barbarossa. The Red Army didn´t organize 'Tank Armies' until 1943 when the famous Tank Battle of Kursk took place. In 1941-42 they used Tanks like the french and distributed them among the Infantry Armies.
ma82fo 3 years ago
LoL in your point of view it is Kursk or riga ??
LiberatorWave 3 years ago
you are wrong bro... why dont you research a little town of Brody Russia. 1941 about 2000 tanks were involved.
JuergenGDB 3 years ago 2
No friend. The long barreled 50mm L/60 cannon was not in production at 1941 but rather produced and fielded from 1942 to 1943. So this anachronism calls into question the authenticity of the clip as a footage of the invasion. I am suspecting that the Reich propaganda ministry edited films from different battles into one movie and pretended that this is 1941 invasion.
DeathWishMonkey 3 years ago
OK, but what the hell is that panzer on the left of the frame at 0:31? It looks like a Panzer Mark III with the long barreled 50mm gun to me, but that model had no businesses hanging arround during Operation Barbarossa.
DeathWishMonkey 3 years ago
I guess they had a few left over and decided it miight prove usefull against the soviets T-34.
deathbed1012 3 years ago
Captured in france expedition corps? Germans used captured tanks.
PapaBearkov 3 years ago
Sigh. Will this "who did the most to deafeat Hitler Germany" discussion never end. The fact is that it took the combined forces of Great Britain (inc Commonwealth), USA and the USSR to defeat Germany and her allies.
The USSR did fight through about 80 % of the German Armed Forces to reach Berlin and they did loose 50 % of the total man losses in WW2 (25 million out of 50 million), but it was a COMBINED effort by the Allies that won the war.
ma82fo 3 years ago 7
@ma82fo You summarized it better then many historians. It really was a COMBINED effort by the Allies that won the war.
mytstact1 3 years ago
Marx was agnostic
CCPnoob 3 years ago
Stalin won the battle against Hitler... But hitler Destroyed Germany...
foman17 3 years ago
you are really racist
Marx was an atheist
Jews were prosecuted by communists because they were wealth owners
moron
CCPnoob 3 years ago
communism is jewish?
are you a idiot? get an education.
I am not jewish or socialist either idiot.
CCPnoob 3 years ago
I am not jewish. I am russian. Stalin was not jewish. He was georgian. There are a lot of jews in White Army and in the Red Army. But White Army leaders were chatterers, they betrayed Nickolay II. 7 million in Ukraine? It is a delirium. What source did you use?
foman17 3 years ago
I don't know what source he uses, i only know what my grand mother told me? the whole villages were destroyed in Poltava Kharkov and other regions, because all food they had was taken from them to help stop starvation in Povoljie, another communist bullshit.
Sizonenko88 3 years ago
How old are you? And how old is your grandmother? And if she lived in Poltava or Kharkov(70% of russians), she cant know anything about Povoljie(my grandmother from there).
foman17 3 years ago
you must be jewish?
shut the hell up.
CCPnoob 3 years ago
Wrong facts:) Germans killed 26 millions russians, and Stalin killed about 700000 citizens(Russian historic archives) at 1927-1953. White Army... why? Do you know ideology of White Army? They were assemblage of parties(kadeti,eseri,oktyabristi) who lose the battle with commie.(eseri were terrorists
).
foman17 3 years ago
hittler kaput, from Russia with love
vitaliichh 3 years ago
nice right on target
Suppressingfire 3 years ago