@@thehorsecockexpress1068 Stalin literally didn’t slaughter 6 tims more lmao, j getting ur stats from an already debunked myth. Not saying Stalin was good, but hes nowhere close to being Hitler

@Dripstein holodomor is not a thing

@Dripstein 10 Million ? Really ?

@@thehorsecockexpress1068 Lol 6 times...I thought it was way more...

@@pauldezv5884 Lol he probably thinks the Katyn Massacre was the Germans after being taught it in his Commie schooling

I had the same thought. Most mfs who wish that would usually be the first to go though

@@chronicandironic8701 I wanted Germany to win because I like their uniforms and weaponry... that was before I learned about the atrocities they committed. Before anyone accused me of supporting Nazism or their racist Ideologies, I’ll let you all know that I was just a kid at that time and I have no knowledge of what WW2 is other than the fact that 6 year old me just finds their uniforms and weapons cool. But when I learnt what they did, f*ck that.

@@apolloknight9521literally 6yo me

@@apolloknight9521 same...

edgy 12 year old boys

Canada too

@@PotentialHistory I didn't know Canada was involved? Learn something new...

@@v2153 Uranium.

10% of all the electricity in the USA was used for it as well. Ten percent of the largest economy in the world's electrical supplies. Nobody else had even close to that ability.

@@squamish4244 well germany could have used the occupied countries industry. but the biggest problem is that hitler thought of the technology as jewish plus what many people forget before the nazis came into power many nobel prizes in physik math and chemistry were going to german scientists which fled the country thx to the nazis and help the us.

The Japanese army tried to engage with Soviet Union two times: at Lake Khasan in 1938 and at Khalkhin-Gol River in 1939. Was beaten to a pulp both times. A very humbling and sobering experience - assuming the Japs had enough of neither tanks nor anti-tanks weapons even in 1945.

Japan was really in a bad spot snd thought attacking the US was the best bad option, too bad the US still fucked them up insanely bad lmao

Not only that, but the Japanese and the Soviets had already fought a series of battles along the border between Manchukuo and Siberia, usually referred to as Kalanin Gol, in 1939. The Soviets gave Japan quite the bloody nose, and convinced their leadership that they were not ready to take on the USSR. Fun fact: one of the senior Soviet military leaders was Gregory Zhukov, he who was perhaps most responsible for the Soviet portion of defeating Germany.

​@Mustapha1963 The Japanese lost the battle, but they gave the soviets a bloody nose, the soviets had what 3 times the men 5 times the tank's and had aircraft for the whole conflict, they had better and more equipment in every way yet had less casualties and lost less equipment to a force that should have obliterated them. The Japanese cancelled their planned invasion of the USSR on the 9th of august 1941 after the USA oil embargo on the first the invasionwas for September 1941. The invasion was (KANTOKUEN) if you wish to do some research.

The Collier's Student Encyclopedia, 1973 edition, in its article about W.W. II posits that one of the fatal mistakes Germany made was delaying Operation Barbarossa by more than 6 weeks due to the perceived need to punish Yugoslavia and Greece first for their "impertinence". The disruption those two countries played to the German plans can certainly in large part be laid at the feet of the utter incompetence of Germany's dubious ally, Italy...

to be fair most of the hearts of iron people I know do enjoy playing as germany but they don't have any inspiration that Germany should have won WWII.

@@xxhowisuxx I know, It's just a bit of a joke on how HOI4 community tends to over-obse about scenarios where the mean Charlie Chaplin look-a-like won WW2.

Ah yes the hoi4 community

Reject the Germaboos of the HOI4 community, embrace the minor country players

@@mikeytrains1 Yeah, Germany is pretty boring to play. Used to always play as Germany when I was new to the game but playing with countries like Sweden, the Netherlands or Hungary is so much more fun

I dunno hitler thought keiv ( the capital) was massive political W. He literally mucked up the already messy the russia campaign for it. Thus i think it might be important to mention the country

Nonsense. It always used to be "the Ukraine". Over time, we've dropped the definite article. One isn't more correct than the other, it's just an evolution of language.

@@patavinity1262 That is incorrect. It’s not just an evolution of language. It specifically happened because Ukraine became an independent country. If the Soviet Union still existed, we would still be saying “the Ukraine”.

@@Vlad-jg2ku That's complete nonsense. The word "the" has no bearing on the diplomatic status of a territory. There's no inherent difference between "the Ukraine" and "Ukraine" any more than there is between "the Jura" and "Jura" or "the Crimea" and "Crimea" or "the Yucatan" and "Yucatan"; these names are all more or less interchangeable in English and any political implications which arise from using one or the other form are entirely subjective.

@@Vlad-jg2ku "Украина" was a name for "frontier" territories, which later changed into "Окраина" as time went on. So I guess "the Ukraine" is just signaling is that it is indeed a country, and not some frontier territories, although term "украина" is not used nowadays as far as I know so it's redundant and we can drop "the" in the it's english pronunciation. И по пути можно начать ещё говорить "в", а не "на" . . .

the bombing barely hurt the facility though, the planted bombs are what took it out. also the bombing actually killed civilians from families i happen to know while also destroying homes

@@christiannicolasborgenstee3092 Yes, the sabotage is what stopped the facility. I included mention of the bombing operation as it is one more effort that was used to reach the same goal. Sorry for your loss. Far too many die in war.

@@morganmcallister2001 just wanted to mention it, i never meant to come across as judgemental or whatever🙂

Didn't the Nazi's hamper their own nuclear program at first due to expelling Jewish scientists?

There was an allied spy in Switzerland who was close to the head of the Nazi’s Nuclear program he was given orders in 43 that if the Germans were close to making one or even close to figuring it out the scientist was to be assassinate. The head of the Nazi’s nuclear program would see the head end of the war.

Yeah I never bought that. Huge civil war buff and honestly the only was the South could have possible won was if the Europeans powers got involved. The Union could have lost every piece of equipment and man at Gettysburg and still won the war. It would have probably taken longer but that was a war that was as close to inevitable as it comes.

@@123chargeitFrom a military standpoint, I agree with you. But war is never independent of politics, and if Lincoln had been voted out of office in 1864 by a peace candidate the South would have won by default. That actually came closer to happening than you might think--Grant's campaign against Lee was so costly that it provoked an outcry in the North. But Sherman's breakthrough and March to the Sea convinced the public that victory was in sight, ensuring Lincoln's reelection.

I love when people can actually enrich the material they react to. Also look for Mr. Terry's videos for the same feel.

@@Kastor774 mr terry rambles on more tho

I hate reaction content that’s all facial expressions and fake laughing

Totally agree. Most reaction videos are very lazy click bait. This commentary enriches the content.

I agree

I guess it's probably because in the past it was "the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic"(as part of USSR) and for some reason when they become simple "Ukraine" the "the" stuck in some minds and they made it public knowledge, even though it's erroneus one.

I think it was because during the time of the ussr it was a state of that whole entity so it’s referring to the Ukraine area of the ussr but I’m not 100% sure

@@KachiAT No, it's because of what Ukraine means. Ukraine literally means "border region". Krai, usually written крај/краи in Slavic languages means "region" and is one of the administrative divisions in Russia to this day. So when the name of your country literally means "border region" in your native tongue, it is normal to ask "A border region of what, exactly?". And that is why Ukrainians are not that keen on the name - the very identity is tied to being the border region of Russia, which makes an Ukrainian actually "border regionalist", if you will. And that is a bit longer problem - they are not some old nation with a distinct culture, name and traditions. They are one and the same Slavic tribe that lived in the Eastern European plains that, over centuries, was divided in separate states. So they have a slight problem now - they don't want to call themselves Russians, even though they essentially are (a bit more about the Russians later), but they don't really have another name to tie themselves to. The only other national name they can tie themselves to is Kievan Rus, the name of a medieval state in the region that is a predecessor to all Slavic European countries east of Poland... but that has Rus in it. So you end up stuck with "border region" as a name of your country and nationality - which is a HUGE problem when you want to portray yourself as something distinct. And they want that. Let me get back at Russia. The name itself comes from the Rus people (that were in fact NOT Slavs) that were called in to rule over the first official Slavic state. Up to the time of Kievan Rus, the states were not really what we would define today. It was just one people, Slavs, living on the large land with no central government and different sections being under the rule of a local chieftain. Just like in Germany, or France. But as those chieftains could not decide among themselves who is to rule the now united country, they decided to agree on an outsides, a neutral option, so no one holds the upper ground. That is how Kievan Rus came to be known as such, it was a state centered in Kiev, ruled by Rus people. Over the centuries all those Slavs simply became known as Russians. And the name stuck. Then, after many wars and countries from the west conquering parts of Russian people (mind you, I am talking about what was known as Russians BACK THEN, not today), cultural differences started to grow, mainly through religion. And then, in the century of nationalism (19th century) those differences among one people became separate nationalities. Ukraine had that bad luck to be stuck with the name that literally ties them to Russian empire and what we TODAY know as Russians - which, I repeat, has no connection as a nationality to the ancient Rus people in anything but a name. Long story short, all those people are Slavs, with some regional differences in customs and dialect which is normal due to the vastness of the Eastern European plains. In the last few centuries, due to the complex geo-political situations, ONE PEOPLE divided into several and stuck to some name. Russians, being the direct continuation of Kievan Rus, stuck to that name. Others changed theirs. And currently in Ukraine, they got stuck with the name that simply ties them to Russia. Think of it this way, if Norway was called "Gräns" and people there "Gränsmen" - do you think they would like that? Gräns being Swedish for border. Of course not, because everyone would then question their history and the right to consider themselves different people. Same with Ukraine. By sticking to that name, they are forever recognized as one people with the rest in the region - something they don't want to do. And that's a problem.

@@sammcdermott78 In german it is also called 'Die Ukraine' most of the time. This is usually used to refer to a region within a country. Since Ukraine has always been a part of some empire or foreign entity (mongols, Poland, Russia) it makes sense that the usage of the Ukraine/ die Ukraine instead of just Ukraine stuck. It also doesn't help much that the word Ukraine can be translated as border from proto-slavic. So when people talk about the ukraine they talk about 'the border' and suddenly the 'the' makes actually somewhat sense.

@@aramhalamech4204 oh right that’s very interesting

I think chances of the Soviet Union falling in would have been much higher if Germany was not on a crazy genocide ride, annihilating all the territories and people east of Germany. In the beginning of Operation Barbarossa many people were happy to be liberated from the Soviet Union until they realised Nazi Germany was even worse. If Hitler was not as mentally sick as he was and would have treated the population of former Soviet land better, chances would have been much higher that people rallied for Germany instead of the Soviet Union, cause the Soviet Union was kinda a rotten structure, Stalin just purged all of his military staff shortly before WW2 and living conditions were not great, especially compared to Germany. Due to Nazis being radical inhuman beings they basically shot themselves in the foot from the beginning, you won't see many people supporting your ideology if your ideology is only made for a very specific ethnic group.

@@TheLuxentertainment the axis tend to shoot themselfs in the feet all the time

@@TheLuxentertainment This is simply not true and a pop-history understanding of nazi ideology. The reality is that the nazis DID get a huge amount of support from the eastern territories, such as Ukraine, Belarus (then called 'White Russia') and the Baltic countries, which includes the guarding and running of concentration camps. A large portion of the red army that was captured defected to the nazis. The Waffen SS was probably the second most diverse military organisation in the world, right behind the British. Plus they had support from Romania. The nazis didn't lose the war because of one reason, it was an accumulation of bad luck and losing important battles. The battle of britain destroyed much of Germany's air defense capabilities, reducing their ability to defend from British bombing of important cities, infrastructure and factories. The Romanians proved to be weak allies during the invasion of the USSR. The freakishly cold winter froze up German artillery and tanks, followed by a thawing to muddy sludge in the spring, making blitzkrieg impossible (which was a huge blow since speed was key to winning against such a huge country like the USSR). American Lend-Lease to the Soviets also helped enormously. Finally, when the USSR was finally lead by component leaders like Zhukov or Vasilevsky in 1942 onwards, that sealed Germany's fate.

I'm not sure if the soviets would still have fought with the same determination, if they were the attackers in the conflict. Remember how the soviets had a hard time against the Finnish. Imo it was mainly the soviets ability to just continuously throw everything they had at the Germans that turned the tide in the east (just look at Soviet casualties), and I don't think the soldiers of the Red Army would have ideologically given it their all if they were the attackers. They would probably see it like the invasion of Finnland, a war more a product of Stalins meglomania. But with the German offensive the red army soldiers were aware they were fighting for their lives and their families, quite literally their own "Lebensraum", which the Germans wanted to take away. I think this ultimately gave them the motivation to continue fighting to the bitter end even after their first horrendous losses. Plus the Germans would have been able to better supply their lines if they had been on the defensive at the start.

@@imperiumoccidentis7351 they had support for like 5 sec before all the warcrimes. Ukraine was a hotbed for uprisings and fighting behinde the lines

@C0LL0SSUS There were two Manhattan projects. The scientists could not decide which was better, a uranium or plutonium bomb. The solution to the dilemma was to build both. Actually, the B-29 project cost more than the Manhattan Project. (One poorly understood fact of the War is how much of industrial output was devoted to aviation.) And not only were these two projects immensely costly, but the United States played a major role in arming and feeding the Brits, Soviets, and other allied forces.

I love that there are so many Ukrainians watching. Will have to get more into your history some time.

@@VloggingThroughHistory would be awesome, thank you for your content

You mean THE Ukraine? XD

I’m half-Ukrainian lol. Very interesting.

@Benjamin Brashaw Perhaps

Yeah this. Krai means borderlands.

Pretty much. We are arguing with Russians about it all the time, the old linguistic norm there is “on Ukraine”, which is as if Ukraine is a province or area, rather than a country. New countries have such issues. However, never heard anybody saying “On Taiwan”.

@@pomamoba I mean, it's stuck in our language, will change with time, so don't get too mad at us for that.) Sadly, we have a lot more pressing issues to fix =\

“Krai” is not only border, it’s also just “lands” and in older slavish languages (as U means in) it relates to CORE So it’s more like core lands, like, main lands

It basically means what @Andrew Diakov said, and Ukraine _is_ the original region that the core of Russian (and Slavic in general) culture and language came from. Kiev was the center of Slavic culture in the Early Middle Ages and it wasn't until after the Mongols got kicked out of the region that the larger Rus population, which Ukranians are a part of, began to form distinct national identities, though the populations had their own identities prior to that. And it became a bit of a tug of war between Moscow and Kiev as to which city was more important, which Moscow eventually won due to a number of factors.

He is what a GOOD historian looks like. There should be more of them, but...unfortunately...

It's called being an open-minded adult XD

He has a very classy approach to history.

Not really lol, u his boyfriend?

@@sureucan9366 shut up

Your support is extra Shiny

Brought to you by the same book all historians reference from lel

Not only that but the mention of disloyalty is fairly unlikely considering Stalin's constant paranoia and purges, it lost him ground but gained loyalty and it could even be argued that taking moscow would embolden the soviets

It's not even like taking Moscow would win the war. Napoleon made the same mistake only a century and a half ago and when the French settled in the whole city was set on fire. It also helps that when your country spans the length of an entire continent that you can just tactically retreat whenever the conditions don't favor you. Even with oil and proper planning, the German war machines wouldn't have been able to keep pushing, especially if America got involved. The Soviets could've stalled indefinitely until the Germans get caught in the impossible terrains of Siberia.

@@joshwolf6932 lf they went to Siberia there wouldn’t be much left to defend. But stalling for time would probably help. Also lend lease aid would probably significantly ramp up, because the Germans seemed closer to winning. As well if they got there, they might have been able to strike Alaska, which would even further incentivize help.

He says that while Russia is vast, you don't have to go all the way to the Pacific. Where I think you would have to occupy is everything west of the Volga, plus cities on the east bank of it like Kazan and Samara. I just don't know where they would find the troops for that.

That makes no sense, the oil reserves tho, that makes a lot of sense.

@@hbtm2951 Stephen is right. Conquering the Soviet Union was an ideological (racist) goal as well as a practical one. Hitler wanted to destroy "Jewish Bolshevism" and in his eyes, the Soviet Union was the heart of that evil. He was also aware of the fact that the two superpowers of the 20th century were going to be the United States and the Soviet Union, and he believed that Germany deserved to take the USSR's place. Check out Mein Kamph and the Zweites Buch for a deeper understanding of Hitler's motivations in WW2. The Soviet Union was a target from day one.

@@michaeltrue4625 Quite funny coming from the fact that they built tanks together and offered help between each other occasionally, same ideology coming from marxism (Hitler even saying that he was the ultimate marxist) but anyway.

@@hbtm2951 "Hitler even saying that he was the ultimate marxist" Making shit up are we?

@@veritasabsoluta4285 Oh, then you did not read Mein Kampf, now i'm making that up. My bad, you're the real historian here.

well yeah thats where this comes from. thats why it sounds so weird to me to just say ukraine instead of the ukraine.

Ukraine only became the name for the nation in the second half of the 19th century. Before that the names varied but the latin version was "Ruthenian", wich also included Belarus

I am ukrainian, and this is what I will say. The term "Ukraine" (Borderland) appeared in the Middle Ages to designate the buffer zone between Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Muscovite kingdom, and the Ottoman Empire, this zone was located in the modern central northern and partially eastern regions of Ukraine. Ruthenia almost always included exclusively the Western lands of modern Ukraine, partly with Polish and Hungarian lands. Although at different times its influence could spread to different territories. Capital of Cossack Ukraine was the city of Chigirin. Capital of Ruthenia was Galicia. Our ancestors from the Western regions self-identified themselves and were known to Western Europe as Rutenes, or Galicians. But the rest of the ukrainians did not see themselves that way, and did not call themselves that. For self-identification (before the birth of theRussian Empire, and its conquest of all of Eastern Europe), we used the names Roxolans, as well as Cossacks, Brodniks, and Rusyns (rusyns are not russians, they are the cultural heirs of Kievan Rus, and now exist in the Ukrainian state, they do not recognize Moscow authorities, they consider themselves primary and true).

Goodness.

that is how many (most?) me262 kills were scored, by looking for them taking off or landing, as they were much more vulnerable, otherwise it was hard to even engage them. Turns out our Grandparents invented camping at spawn points, who knew..

@@tucsonbandit correct in fact of the 350 some Me262 kills only about 22 where actually dogfight based the Tuskegee airmen are also credited with the most dogfight kills of the me262 having shot down 6 total

I still think my favorite confirmed kill of a me262 was the dude who just happened to be shooting his M1911 off of a mountain side that just happened to hit a pilot as he was trying to escape some spitfires

@@SnepBlepVR dude what??

Heres the problem with that, the Soviets barely had a navy. At least one that could threaten the Japanese islands or rival that of the U.S or U.K. Plus Soviet higher ups saw no interest in occupying Japan like they did Germany.

@@GabrielUngacta the Japanese had no way of being sure about the Soviets not occupying their country...and given how much lives an invasion of the Home Islands would cost it stands to reason that the western allies would help the Soviets in their landings (assuming no A-bombs are read and/or Japan doesn't surrender). I personally think the Japanese decision makers saw that only the Western powers would allow the Emperor to survive (once the Soviets attacked), and the A-bombs were a final nail in the coffin they were in since Pearl: they just sped up the decision to surrender.

@@1207rorupar if you'll remember the western allies and the Soviet Union were arguing about who gets who in Germany and Europe. I doubt the allies were willing to share Japan. Especially due to the fact that Aoviet generals were not interested in occupying parts of Japan to infuriate and possibly provoke another war with the allies immediatley after the end of WW2. Also the Soviets did not have the resources nor experience to build up an anphibious assult fleet for a massive invasion. And finally ot would have taken around a year to transport the troops needed from Eastern Europe to Manchuria for the invasion, by that time the allies would have already had a major foothold in Japan.

@@GabrielUngacta I can't see the Allies successfully invading more than Kyushu, Shikoku and at most South Honshu. In a scenario with no A-bombs and the decision made to invade Japan rather than bomb it and blockade it into submission, then both Britain and the US would most definitely support a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido and (once things bogged down in the south) of Northern Honshu. And given Pearl I also can't imagine the US accepting anything less than an unconditional surrender, which Japan wouldn't accept until it was placed in a situation similar to nazi Germany. Now, the Soviets might bargain more of Europe for their involvement in Japan, probably the whole of Korea too. They would probably not be as aggressive as they were in their race West to Berlin but, with the Allies also not helping them too much (just to get going in the South) both would probably be OK with invading Japan. It's the UK which I doubt would insist in fighting.

@@1207rorupar this should be able to explain the situation more than I can. kzfaq.info/get/bejne/iN1ym5ehlZ7Ygqc.html

Same, unfortunately I’m not drunk 😔

Your are sooo cool for being drunk

@@dailypunch6249 😂😆

@@dailypunch6249 Thanks. I too thought the constant vomiting and shaking when I didn't have enough was rad af.

@@murderc27 oh dude so epic

If this is all true then why did the Japanese and the soviets fight that border incident?

@@lt3746 Because of the Mongolian People’s Republic and disputes with Japan over where exactly the border with its puppet Manchukuo was. It wasn’t Japan aiming to expand north, but the Japanese defeat in that was enough to convince its military that the “Go North” faction was a non-starter out of an inability to match the Soviets on the ground. The simple fact of the matter is that any attempt to invade the USSR by Japan would have necessitated leaving a skeleton force in China. The Japanese army just wasn’t large enough to fight such a war, and the potential gains were so minimal that it didn’t even make sense for Japan to do so. You have to cross a distance comparable in size to the width of the continental US before you hit anything of value after taking Vladivostok.

@@trinova9581 Interesting reversal considering the Japanese handed the Russians a humiliating defeat just a few decades prior

@@lt3746 another thing to add is that the Japanese government or high command were not even responsible for the border disputes. It was caused by low-ranking officers of the IJA stationed in Manchuria. I don't know why but the Japanese Army had a strange reputation of lower ranked officers defying higher ranked officers.

@JanFunification True, but these pockets were much smaller than the Stalingrad pocket and te distances were smaller.

Stalingrad had no significant value at all, getting bogged down at Stalingrad was a silly mistake but it didn't really matter in the grand scheme of things because the Germans had no chance against the whole world

Fair point.

In California, the issue is using "the" in front of freeway numbers. In Southern CA (i.e. Los Angeles) they say "The 101" or "The 5" to refer to the freeways "US-101" or "I-5". Whereas in Northern CA (i.e. San Francisco) we just use the freeway number without "the". It really marks your origin when you use the "wrong" terminology for the region you are in.

@@edwardblair4096 interesting. I was more referring to ohio state university copyrighting "The" before the school name and when announcing it in news etc always emphasizing it THE ohio state university. Which if I am not mistaken, and I may be, is their way of snubbing ohio university.

@@patrickfriel7957 every college and university has a silent the, The Ohio State University, The Ohio University, The Kansas University and so on, OSU just likes to emphasize it as Thee Ohio State University.

In Polish it means countryside and a closer translation would probably be frontier.

There was no Russian when that name first appeared.

@@antonbatura8385 Remember no Russia

no, it's true.

He should watch part two: your argument is in that pretty much in verbatim and it goes into more detail.

@@jjwh Yeah I'd 100% agree.

So germany becoming unstoppable is basically false as no matter what happens, from the point where they f***ed up and extended way more than they should have. They were too confident and made enemies way more than they could possibly handle. The most likely win for them (wouldn't be WW2) has to be signing an agreement with soviets and cut their industrial advancement and comeback. Then ending the war before bombardment of England. Important part is as long as soivets aren't there to sandwich germany, germany could have factories that aren't bombed to smithereens and soldiers to fight/suppress resistance fighters and enemies. Great britain isn't invested in fighting thus war is unpopular leading to an instability. USA doesn't have a proper claim yet and mobilization isn't in order. With unsettled scores the war stops for a while, germany has new lands, money, influence. Both sides continue to their arms race. Nukes are becoming more likely to be used, world is still in tension, on the horizon a far darker future full of mushrooms and grim fates. Here is the thing, with germany becoming a huge threat cold war still happens. Communism is look down upon but not truly hated. The name of this new game is STABILITY. If two leader superpowers doesn't fall then may God help us. Better way(in germany's perspective) would be completely shutting down the soviets and integrate the land to enable continuous expansion. If they are able to get new allies to their side than a temporary stalemate can be enforced( familiar? ).

Not true. Yes the national socialist ideology hates the communists but thats doesnt mean when Hitler and his staff runs the country they didnt use realpolitik. Thats why they traded with the soviet union and partitioned poland. Deboooonked

@@darklysm8345 it was more between politicians Molotov(USSR) and Ribbentrop (Reich) Hitler was not sane his hatred literally led to 6 million people genocide no way Stalin ever trust him if somehow Hitler don't attack USSR paranoid Stalin will definitely do by 1942-43

Yeah same

The History Channel was "spicing up" their documentaries long before it devolved into Ice Road Truckers, Pawn Stars, and Random-ass Lumber Yard Hillbillies. But at least they were doing it to...you know... _historical_ topics. I know I wouldn't be half as enamored with history as I am today were it not for the History Channel. And honestly, penetrating the myths of history and discovering the truths is possibly the most fun part of learning about the subject.

Bruh the History Channel is no place to get accurate info

@@felixgutierrez993 when they showed historical documentaries they should. I'm talking about the days when they used to jokingly call it the Hitler channel.

@@MrEd8846 I call it the WW2 Channel lol

Endorsed. One of TIK's best.

Yes one of the most accurate explanations of Germany's Oil situations TIK is amazing

@@nazarsinkovitch6779 That video in particular is good however in at least 2 occasions he lied about the information in his sources.... there are good channels on youtube but one important limitation is that is not peer reviewed like an historical journal where other historians scrutinize the job of the others

@@Chepicoro well yha its a KZfaq video not a historical journal but he's still more accurate then most online sources and corrects himself when he makes an error most of the time. Also his work on the battle of Stalingrad is amazing.

@@Chepicoro A lot of history have a particularly agenda from my experience, they all pretty much disagree with each other, some go in to detail about some aspects really well then gloss over other part's so it's hard to get a correct answer especially when a lot of them have there own feelings come into play, at lest TIK corrects his mistakes.

Excluding the literal handful of super aces they still had.

@@bigvinnie3 Super aces🤣🤣 The German Command and Air Force had total Authority over it public, total conviction in purpose, years of preparation, a vast air fleet versus the RAF, who were tremendously unprepared, were building and training in real-time to catch up, due to the slow traction of a democracy dragged into a war, with the public still indignant about World War I and the Brits still defeated the German Air Force- the Nazis are so overrated as a military force. It's rridiculous- They simply benefited from 1st mover advantages, The Similar Malaise and unpreparedness of the French democracy, reluctantly dragged into war, Leaving the Ardennes Unprotected. The Ardennes being fortified means the Nazis get nowhere in the 1st place The same as in World War I where they benefited from Blitzing through against distracted and "less prepared" democracies in the West, Then, Enormously benefiting from being camped outside Paris for the whole war, whilst the allies literally no room to make any mistakes, could only throw bodies in the way for the most part and couldn't do anything innovative, unlike the Kaiser's forces miles from Berlin, which was completely safe

That's partially true. I wouldn't say they were overrated they were a competent proficient military force. Especially on the tactical level. But that's because the Germans have always emphasized the local level and quick wars over grand strategic aims. But that's because back when Prussia was just a little duchy on the edgy of central europe the only way they could win a war was to not let it become a war of attrition. Now that fighting style once Germany was a major world power is flawed. I mean the weren't undefeatble or godly aryan super humans but they were a talented professional army with an excellent officer corps(though the allied countries had very talented officers as well and this applies to them too.). Also we can't say definitively if the ardennes were defended they'd have gotten nowhere. You can never be certain with alternate history. But you're probably right. But exploiting the failures of your enemies is part of what makes a good military. Lastly all the top ten fighter pilots of the war were Germans. One of them made triple Ace in a day. Hartmann took out 352 enemy aircraft. Rudel not a fighter pilot took out 500 tanks and a battleship. Now this isn't because the germans are some mythical super warriors its because they didn't rotate pilots out or use them for training. But they were also incredibly skilled. Now granted for every Hartmann or Rudel there was 100 badly trained unmotivated pilots by mid-late war.@@Rowlph8888

Well, it was a borderland of the Commonwelth, not Russia. The land between christian world and the Tatars. It became a part of Russia in XVII/XVIII century and was called there "Little Russia".

yea, for some reason saying "The U.S." and "The U.K." sounds right but i've never heard of "The Ukraine". In fact "the" only feels right for U.S. and U.K.

@@yarzyn_5699 You gave a pretty good explanation of the matter. I think the proper translation of what Russians called the region of Ukraine after the reunification of the 17th century would be "Lesser Russia". This way of referring to Ukraine is very controversial, but, from the Russian perspective at that point in time, it was considered a newly acquired land as opposed to "Greater Russia" with the capital up north in Moscow.

the russian federation. the german reich. the french state. and the list goes on with "the" usually is put in a facist state or a republic for example (the chinese soviet republic) but don't get that confused they are still communist

@@chozer1 Is the Republic of China, 中华民国, supposed to be fascist or communist according to your explanation?

It... isn't. Ukraine is a geographical term as well. "The Ukraine" refers to the area, not the country.

@@thomasowens9373 No because that’s implying that Ukraine should be a part of Russia which it’s not.

@@VOTE_REFORM_UK Austria means the eastern marches. That implies it's part of Germany. Destroyed by facts and logic. History will be history, there's plenty of places named after geographical terms.

@@thomasowens9373 u right is mean literally 'at the very edge'. But new political situation in the Ukraine dictates new conditions.

There never was THE Ukraine. It only became a thing recently because Russians refer to "in Ukraine" as "НА Украине" (literally "at the border") and Ukrainians "В Украине" (meaning Ukraine as a country, though linguistically incorrect). There is no English equivalent, so they invented "THE Ukraine" to make a distinction.

Hey me too! Happy birthday!

Happy birthday !

@@Floreals Thank you :)

Happy birthday, glad you found something you like

Embargoing a country is not even close to being the same thing as being at war with them. And the only American volunteers that I am aware of that fought in China were the Flying Tigers. They did not fight until after Pearl Harbor, although they did arrive several months earlier. In any case, their numbers were pretty low. The Flying Tigers had about 90 planes, so I'd guess that's 200-300 Americans. The Japanese decision to attack America was just dumb.

@@Spencersoft Both Japan and Germany severely underestimated America due to its lack of Military history. Even in WW1 Americas military experience was minor.

They were involved sure, but as a neutral party, now unlike World War One where they were ambivalent and happy to supply anyone who had the money for it, in World War Two they were certainly more biased, but you must note that like with WWI The Germans were liked for a time until they joined the war, Once Prohibition started the Germans and their Beer companies became targets for politicians in-favor of prohibition. In WWII a lot of people thought of Germany as a wonderful place, this was of course, obviously before major news about the Camps had reached the ears of the American People...

@@jgw9990 But it's industrial might was not. By 1919 the US was manufacturing more munitions and war material than the UK, France, and Germany combined.

@@jgw9990 Well that was a major flaw, in 1916 and 1917 both France and Britain went bankrupt and couldn't participate in the war for much longer. The United States took over in their economics and made it so that both those countries would have been able to continue to keep fighting. Germany's view of America was incredibly stupid. That was a fatal mistake.

Won’t stop the German from Running out of Oil

Respect

I think one way they could have won was to go ahead and finish the English off at Dunkirk but held off on attacking the Soviet Union for a while. Perhaps a few years

@@Jordan81577 I don’t think that would have worked

Amazon!

Sorry but it was not a match in 1945. From wikipedia: After the war, the USAAF compared the P-80 and Me 262 concluding, "Despite a difference in gross weight of nearly 2,000 lb (900 kg), the Me 262 was superior to the P-80 in acceleration, speed and approximately the same in climb performance. The Me 262 apparently has a higher critical Mach number (the Me 262A's being at M 0.86), from a drag standpoint, than any current Army Air Force fighter."

@@GrandTheftChris And the P-80 had a superior ceiling, better weapons for taking out fighters, better range, half the cost, and didn't need it's engines overhauled after 10 hours.

@@LordNinja109 Yes but all that became only usable after the war. In '45 they had like two machines in Italy that needed a lot of improvement. The Germans were ahead at that point and had 1400 jets that flew missions. The US not. That was my only point. Of course after the war the US could improve their jets, whereas Germany had to stop the development completely.

@@GrandTheftChris Germany made 1400 jets, but only 300 reached units, and with a readiness rate of 14%, that meant only 42 at any one time could fly. My whole point is that in '45, we were about to level the playing field again. Most comparisons about Germany's technology are done in the context of a vacuum. With no regard that the Allies were also working on various projects themselves.

@@LordNinja109 I think we both agree that the Me-262 had almost no impact on the war and didn't change its outcome. The only reason for my reply was your op "In '45 we were already producing the P-80, a jet that was a match for the Me-262" which is just not true. It wasn't a match in '45 and they never engaged in dog fights during the war. You compare two airplanes from two different development periods. It makes no sense at all. I don't question the capability of the US to build a better fighter jet after the war because they did. (Ironically also with the help of german engineers.) I just believe one should never try to change history and stick to the truth.

theres no winning considering mistakes of invading russia declaring war on america and losing the air superiority in britain...these were giant mistakes...they basically took on the world..and lost..what a surprise...

If by "cover" you mean scoff at and barely reply to the meat of the criticism.

@@Gustav_Kuriga No, he means cover

@@kedarunzi9139 No, no he doesn't. He scoffs and hand waves it.

correct me if im wrong but this was by design, no? hitler actively advocated for this kind of "darwinism" and while often useful it led to his downfall as generals didnt fully tell him the truth about the situation.

Europe would need to liberated

@@Damo2690 no, Germany was begging for a peace treaty.

@@anon300 Well not exactly, they wanted peace in which they kept their conquered land. Which the Brittish would never accept. Asking for a treaty doesn't mean your losing

What

Baste

You might want to update it to ‘congrats for reachen 50k’

Y e s