Easy to say , it was the third front and over stretched them to the max think your view has a lack of nuance

​@Chipsandgravy202 nothing about what he said is lacking nuance or incorrect.

If America and Britain wouldn’t have opened up other fronts. Germany would have broke through Stalingrad AND took Moscow 2:58

@@jontaedouglas7244 True, I think Germany would win USSR in a 1v1. Britain attacking their oil holdings in the middle east was a major blow, which is why they later went towards the direction of the stalingrad in the first place to get to the caucasus.

@@Valdaur the only thing the Britain had going for it was the inspiration Churchill instilled in his people. Had it been chamberlain he would’ve surrender no doubt. Hitlers defense against the US and would’ve been the pacific and he would’ve been able to focus full force on Stalin and who would’ve stopped him ?

What an amazing comment

I think the main reason is that Germany get played into British deception way too many time, To the point that now they're incapable of taking a concrete decision, Not to mention, they get sabotaged a lot, with double agent, the communication sabotage. the British was good at playing a mind game Germany could hold up just fine if this is was a weaker and dumber enemies

Bureaucracies are inherently arms of the state. Whether or not any particular institutions are corrupted, they still possess a jurisdiction granted to them by the state. In contrast, an anarchist state would accordingly have no bureaucratic institutions.

Wonderful comment,but please understand that it was the war that brought it down,not it's system The notion that Germany would have collapsed without war is a myth

And scattering what little you have, over 2000 miles of coastline, is hardly a brilliant strategy.

@@flashgordon6670 They had no other viable strategy. It's not the best, but still better than nothing.

Germans sent 7 panzer divisions against Monty. Including 5 SS ones. All fully equipped and manned.

@@coling3957 Nuts!

The Germans could have won if they had known where to put their forces, but they had no idea. Even Rommel had it largely wrong, and we still would have beaten him. They did eventually realize where they should put things but our air power prevented quick movement. That and the Soviets about to launch their offensive so the whole issue was moot.

I think that even if the Alps is a better for defense the front also will get bigger, the could could be shorter in Emilia-romagna

his meth ego

Same reason he did in the east. He didn't want to lose any territory. If he allowed the armies in the east to regroup and fall back in 1942 like they wanted, they would've sacrificed land for stronger defense, but Hitler wanted to hold onto territory and delude himself into thinking the armies could still push while under equipped

Would that possible have been because the allies were already pushing up through Italy and Hitler wanted to stop that advance? In fact, the allied advance through Italy was going so quick that it was a worry for IKE and Churchill. They did not want to many German troops retreating from Italy so quickly as that would indeed have freed them up for use by Hitler in Normandy. Therefore, instead of having the US forces go around the town of Casino, IKE ordered that they go through that town, knowing it was heavily defended enough for a prolonged battle to take place. That would then keep German units in Italy and away from Normandy. The battle of Casino was really an unnecessary battle that cost a large amount of US lives. The allies could have simply gone around it, left the small German unit still remaining in that town and pushed on towards Rome. The small German unit in Casino would have then been encircled and easy to deal with once cut off from receiving support and supplies. IKE and Churchill Tactics for the success of D-Day that sacrificed allied lives.

Hitler thought retreats would beome contagious and never stop the easy option for lack of elan and ideological zeal of national socialism

Correct. They fought well under hopeless conditions.

@@georgecoventry8441 It's air force which was around 3 times smaller than the US ,6 times smaller than the Soviets ,slightly larger than RAF ,working in 15 percent efficiency due to extreme fuel shortage in 1944,lack of pilots ,lack of fuel quality which was detrimental to engine and aircraft performance Shit dude,the Germans were simply God gifted Add that to army which spread on all fronts,it's plans constantly leaked to allies due to codebreaking of enigma ,immobility ,absolute allied superiority German army had to make its army footed for human wave and deep attack doctrine of Soviets,mass air assault and grand battle plan doctrine of the US,while cognitive and light doctrine of the British ,the German strength was the best use of their mobile warfare doctrine ,that too without fuel ,it's NCO training which was the best in the world,the germans lacked NCOs by that time in 1944,caught completely by surprise ,well the heer did wonders

Indeed it was.

It’s always easier to defend than attack.

@@GotoHere doesn't always work like that when your railway is getting bombed ,much of manpower destroyed in Russia,lack of fuel,partisans Also 4.2million allied army was defeated by 3.3 million German army which had lesser resources and combat stamina than French Also 21000 Soviet tanks were annihilated for just over 2000 German tanks in operation barbarossa and German tanks were inferior at that time ,neither was russian landscape favourable

it was more like Germany had to send Millions of Soldiers to the eastern Front. Thats the ONLY Reason

okay boys lets be real. Without having to worry about an eastern front, the allies would have failed. But without air supremacy, even with an eastern front, the allies would have most definitely also failed. It was due to multiple factors favoring the allies that this landing succeeded.

Most of the men fighting in the western front were conscripts the veterans were mostly on the eastern front.

@@Plexpara No. Even if the Eastern front never happened, Germany would still have too many coastline and frontlines to cover. You really think 4 million germans are going to defending Omaha beach? Britain, USA, and Canada had an overwhelming material and manpower advantage over Germany through the entirety of WW2. It would take a lot longer but the western allies were 99% mechanised so could outmanoeuvre German units everywhere. "You have horses, what were you thinking!"

​@@Luke_Sandy_High_Ground You really think its no Problem to fight against several superpower at different sides? Sorry but you got 0 idea. Of course it would look absolute different if Germany would focus inly on the west. 100 % btw eben a mass of english and US general said tha them self. Germany had main focus on russia. tehy didnt even attack the west just defend cause they were mainly on russia

You have said it all, Russia was already in Berlin before other countries intervention

​@@izevbizuatrustine611 Thats not true... Cause the same thing again. Germany had the West on the other side and could not focus fully on Russia. Russia would do nothing against germany...as we saw in WW1 And Russia came at the same time as the West did.

@@Plexpara no that's not true, the whole world has to wait for Russia decision about German invasion of Europe.... Let me tell you, if US would have done anything, they wouldn't have waited till when Russia has to decide, meanwhile Russia didn't take any decisions until winter comes.... Also according to history, Soviet Union has already pushed Nazi to Berlin and millions has surrendered before the US troops come from the west

@@Plexparayou try take out 10million well trained Axis troops then if it’s so easy ? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Front_(World_War_II) I’m no fan of Communsim but you got to respected their people for taking out 10 millions German + Axis troops And remember in 1942 they was practically alone (but Uk was a big helper in the War of the West) and still won at Stalingrad ?

​@@whyucomingfast9972 yeaa...I think we all got to respect even more that the western world and the eastern world was needed, plus 6 years to beat one little Germany...do you know Germany won over Russia in ww1 allready? Russia gave up. And in ww2 was Germany again close to Moscow. The only reasy why they dont did it this time was the western front. Sorry but i cant respect World Powers if they cant even beat a small country alone...I respect that small country then.. do you respect when 20 big guys beat up 1 small dude or you respect the small dude who take out 15 of them before he goes down?

By 1944, Germany was running out of juice. After 06-1941, that is when the weakening of Germany began.

WW2's unfortunate reality is that a key strategic area was won by the wrong place. Yet, we had all made the agreement that a West front was necessary, and in the end we needed a place at the table. The Soviets end up in a 1 on 1 with Germany for over 2 years, and as the Soviet strength cranked up, Germany's ability to defend other fronts withered away. Even as D-Day was happening, Germany had maintained a force of over 3 million on the East front, most of which got blipped in the summer.

How would those extra 'mobile panzer corps' be fuelled?

Most of the panzers were in the east.

Imagine Hitler keeping the alliance with Russia who was supplying Fuel to the German Military. Without having to invade Russia, Hitler could have tripled the support for Romel in North Africa against the Allies. 1/3 could focus on capturing new oilfields in the Middle East. Hitler should have focused on an Invasion of England. Telling the Japanese to stay away from attacking the USA would have helped his cause, because Hitler declared war on "America". Too soon and too early. As it stands, Germany would suffer shortages of fuel and the ability to outproduce Great Britian & the USA. We won - He lost.@@oliverhughes610

Yes, they were. Imagine no war with Russia. Probably, much later. Then he could have given Rommel enough to possibly defeat Montgomery & USA. Then get those new Arab oil fields without relying on Russia providing fuel. Half the panzers would be under Rommel's control. The other half would be stockpiled in France for the German Invasion of England. But - No Cigar. We won - He lost. @@gabbytay

It wasnt static defense lines, France was aware of this, in fact, the Germans had along with the Russians developed a concept of operations(yes in the 20s and 30s this were friends and cooperated extensively). The Main lesson from WWI wasnt that Offensives failed to move the line, they failed to keep it, because the true aim should be not the enemy front but the enemy rear(its tactical depth). The Battle of France was a narrow front attack based on the battle of Movements(Bewegungskrieg not Blitzkrieg). It was a risky maneuver, a narrow front attack can end catastrophically(as many soviet counter Offensives proved). Also France was caught on the move, you see the Defense of Belgium was planned, but then to appease Hitler the Belgium King declared Neutrality and did not allow the French to position, the fortifications around key Belgium rivers were the defense lines and the theoretical continuation of the Maginot line. The Soviets denied German Bewengungskrieg with their own plan Deep Battle. Deep Battle unlike Bewengenskrieg is a complete Battle doctrine since it has a plan for all situations(defensive, Offensive, active defense, fighting retreat). How this was implemented in practice was more complicated, because Red Army command had been purged prior to the war and Soviet division were on the attack when they really had to concentrate strength. The Soviet units were really powerful on paper, they had way to much firepower for its logistical trail. There was a key difference in how they attacked, Germany took Advantage of weak points (Schwerpunckt) when engaging the operational front, the Soviets choose to attack the strong points in order to create the operational opportunity(Bagration an example the target were the biggest German fortifications in Belarus and they would all be gone in 3 days).

Correct. Montgomery's plan was perfect, used the German's preconceptions against them, took advantage of the respective fighting qualities of the Canadian, British, and American armies, and worked as he had intended. We were fortunate he was appointed, since he almost wasn't because he was difficult to work with. Incompetents like Eisenhower couldn't understand military strategy, no matter how many times Montgomery explained it to them (and Monty spent half the war explaining the same simple concepts to Eisenhower, to no effect).

Y'think?

Once you start down the road of war, there are only two ends. And never a more than 50-40 chance.

When I saw that I released this video isn’t worth the watch

No there wasn't, each troops were in their own side of the attack while americans were struggling to infiltrate, British troops with Canadian were against most of the German troops and still did it, the numbers aren't correct the British never tried to take the win by themselves but not only they had all the forces in the air and sea they also had the best result in Normandy, the British and canadian troops could have made it alone Americans made it easier by... well literally being target practice by their own incompetence in infiltrating, we don't know half of what truly happened in WW2 but one thing is for sure, the British were the only reason democratic western countries won, if it wasn't for Britain we would be in a very bad place (I'm not British)

@@erikerik3823 Dude what are you talking about here? Your post doesn't makes any sense and has nothing to do with what I said at all. I'm talking about the map in the video being wrong. And it is. Right from the start a few seconds into the video they put 2 American flag, 3 British flags and a Canadian flag. On D-Day the US sent in 5 Divisions, the British 3 and the Canadians 1. 32 seconds into the video the put in order from top to bottom a Canadian flag, an American flag, A British flag, 2 American flags, 2 British flags and then a french flag. That is COMPLETELY wrong. The Canadian army was at the top of the line along the coast, south of them was the British army, then south of the British army was in order, the US 9th Army, the US 1st Army, the US 3rd Army, the US 7th Army and then the French Army. The US 15th Army comes in at the end of the war while pushing into Germany. Additionally there was the US 5th Army in Italy along with the British 8th army which was like 40% British with the rest Canadian, Indian and other nations troops. In regards to your irrelevant post to what I said though, that isn't even correct. When the Allies landed British were supposed to take the city of Caen on the first day as the area they were attacking was the lightest defended area. There is a reason that Omaha beach was the only beach that had 2 divisions dedicated to taking it. Going into the battles it was known that was the most heavy defended area of the Normandy Beach. But because Caen was not taken it was easily the most defensive and important area of the Normandy front the Germans could hold. Which is why the Germans started the majority of their armoured divisions in that area after the initial landings. As the landings continued and the Americans built up their troops the US launched the break through attack with Bradley's armies lead by Patton's 3rd Army. When that break through happened the Germans rushed all of their top divisions over to try to stop the break through at first and then they tried to cut off Patton's 3rd army after the breakthrough happened. That failed and Patton completely outflanked the German top divisions. That resulted in the Germans best divisions essentially have all of their firepower wiped out at the Falaise pocket and could have resulted in them being completely surrounded had the British pushed up to the line they were supposed to meet Patton at to complete the pocket. Patton urged the higher ups to let him keep pushing forward to get to the British positions to finish off the pocket early but his request was denied because it was feared that his already stretched out Army could be overrun if they pushed forward anymore. So he was told to wait until the British broke through the German line in front of them and completed the pocket. That allowed a sizeable portion of the German forces in France to escape. Though they did so without most of their heavy equipment and were constantly strafed and bombed from the air on the one road out they had. And what you are talking about when you say they had all the forces in the air and sea again makes no sense. The US Army Airforce and Navy were so much larger then any other force in the world during WW2. They were so large that the rest of the world combined didn't have a larger airforce or Navy then the US did. So again, your crazy, rambling barley literate post makes no sense, is completely wrong everywhere, and had nothing to do with my initial post from the very start. My post was about the video in the map posting units that didn't exist in real like that should have been easily researched by the channel and posted correctly.

@@erikerik3823 What are you talking about in this post? It makes no sense. What is it that makes you think the British had the best result in Normandy? They landed on the easiest beaches to attack and still didn't take their primary target in the city of Caen and then didn't take it until way later when the Americans broke through the German lines and pulled the German best divisions away from that area to attack the Americans who were breaking through the German lines and encircling them everywhere.

@@erikerik3823 I think you put this reply into the wrong thread because it makes no sense. For the OP, you are correct. The video did completely make the maps incorrect. The US did send the most divisions into France on D-Day, they did attack the most well defended of the beaches and following D-Day the US did have 6 armies in Europe to the 1 and half British armies, 1 Canadian army and 1 French army.

This isn't logical this is pointless, it's basically whoever supports it's club, all of you guys support USA you are gonna fight the most that USA was the best country in D Day while i will fight it was britain, no one knows for a fact, the difference is that I'm a Brazilian defending a country that has no intention whatsoever to impose itself as the best western country in WW2, if it wasn't for my research and i mean properly research not only googling a few stuff (an american company) i wouldn't even know about canadian troops, because of the thousands of WW2 media a small percentage shows anything that isn't American, a guy here just said British got it easy and USA encircled Germany, that isn't true but it is for him the same way someone would defend that it's football team was better last season

You are assumingI presume that England would be unaware of Hitlers intentions. Bare in mind that Englands spy network was second to none. In addition there are some intelligent people in the restof the world besides the germans .

it also would've helped if Hitler didn't try speed running genocide until AFTER the war was won. Also he never shouldve attacked Russia and TBH I genuinely believe the world would've let Germany have France and Poland if he just stopped there

Brits also lost the war, just look at their country lol

They lost when they decided to invade Russia, if all the resources that went to the eastern front went to Britain instead then they could of won, because launching an invasion over the channel was one thing but launching it over the Atlantic would of been a complete other

Hitler's hubris was the allies best edge lol, what a dinkel berry seriously

Less areas to be forced to do slave labor in?

​@@danielclancy1132 they attacked the soviets because they were desperately out of oil, it was a gamble all or nothing there's no invasion without fuel to move stuff or even train new personnel

No…just as cited in this video, the Wehrmacht in Normandy were poorly trained conscripts, equipped with older weapons and a lot of captured foreign materiel. All those “secret weapons of the Third Reich” videos are utter rot. Bolt action rifles and horse drawn carriages; THAT was the actual Wehrmacht.

The most realistic answer for the failure of any person/entity of power

The bane of the Germans in both world wars

Yes a problem in both conflicts. Love your avatar, BTW 👍🏼

No he didn't

@@mkailov13 He did. What sense would it make to lie?

Correct. Patton was a buffoon who never did well when he had to actually fight Germans (as at Metz and in the Ardennes). When others did all the fighting, he drove around the countryside (Sicily, France). The movie made him into a hero that he wasn't - his soldiers hated him, because they knew he didn't care about their welfare. He was the opposite of Montgomery in every way, the person the movie pretended was his rival.

@@seathanaich6 I wouldn't go so far as to call Patton a buffoon, but he was not a particularly principled man. Anyone who is curious about that statement should look up Task Force Baum and they will find out what I mean. I saw a presentation here on KZfaq somewhere where someone had combed through the German records and prior to Normandy in mid-1944 they found only two mentions of Patton, and neither made any note of him being a formidable Allied general. At the end of WW2 General Eisenhower wrote a letter to General Marshall and he called Patton the problem child of the army, due to his bad press for a number of reasons. If Patton had not died shortly after the war I don't think his future would have been bright in the US army.

Does that suggest sleeping for longer leads to lesser quality performance or sleeping less produces better results?

They never had the numbers to keep winning. They were destined to eventually lose.

Yes they bombed the hell out of the Normandy beaches, but because of cloud cover they missed most of their targets. Bombing wasn't the decisive factor. It was the guts of the troops, and the Navy destroyers who sailed close enough to the beaches to destroy key Nazi defenses. Thank for asking. Lots of good books on this subject at your library. And it's an important subject.

​@@brianniegemann4788Can you please choose the best book about this in your opinion and then type the entire contents of it from start to finish in your reply to this comment so I can read the book here?

@@phoenixmodellingphotography certainly, I'll get back to you in about 300 years.

The Canadian flag was there second from the right which was the Red Ensign. The Maple Leaf first flew in 1965 and was another one of Lester Pearson’s accomplishments. I remember the Union Jack flying in Canada before that and if I remember correctly Canadian soldiers used the ensign just to distinguish themselves from the British during battles.

I hear they're releasing a boxset to celebrate

Germany had Japan, Romania, Finland, Hungary and many more, and a lot of those allied countries barely did anything

That was on the initial day where the Allies had to clear German FORTIFIED positions. The U.S. had to clear the toughest beaches at Omaha.

Too busy staying up late reading Time magazine

With combined forces of german-austrian troops. It wasnt a solo win.

Western Europe’s fate was saved when the U.S. was able to act as a buffer to the Soviets after primarily defeating the Nazis on the Western Front.

Not always, the snooze button on any modern alarm clock reliably provides the opportunity for you to choose to snooze for 3 extra 5 minute intervals at minimum, however if you do choose to snooze beyond that 3rd 5 minute interval then you will indeed lose

Even simpler answer. Germany was outnumbered. Was only a matter of time that they lost

Germany had inexperienced and experienced troops on the Western front and so did the Allies. The only reason that Western Europe didn’t become communist was because of the U.S. and the reason Japan was defeated was primarily the U.S. The U.S. and Soviets did the most damage to the Axis. Britain, too, but Russia was an enemy at the end.

Germany was strong , but they lost.

And Japan was strong too. They had a better overall navy than Germany and were more fanatical.

you got that back to front

They were off bustin nuts like a bunch of delinquents I bet

Nah they'd be saying something in German, like "Finna buss, finna buss!". Those are the only German words I know if that wasn't obvious so idk what I even said lol

In politics, everyone follows their own interests. The Soviets signed with Hitler and partitioned Poland and did not join the Allies. Except when they were invaded, the Soviets agreed with Hitler's expansionist ideology. I expect that if Hitler had not broken the agreement, they would have divided Europe with Russia and Germany.

Knockin boots

@@salciano Germany didn't want to invade Russia, however they needed the fuel, people forget the size of the British empire during WW2. Britain still ruled the seas, and even without the US the British empire was in excess of over 300 million due to British Raj. Germany couldn't even break a stalemate between them and France during WW1, they never had the numbers to start with and their only chance was a rapid campaign while hoping for a peace treaty. As a German I can tell you first hand before D-Day they where already forcing folks into conscription at gun point.

They did not have the numbers or resources to keep winning. They were destined to lose eventually.

​@@GainingDespairYeah wasn't Hitler thirsty af for a peaceful relationship with Britain as soon as he conquered France? Also what is 'British Raj'?

@@phoenixmodellingphotography It's modern day India, Pakistan, Myanmar, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, and Nepal. British Raj was the colonial name of the country back when it was 1 unified nation under British rule. It alone had a combined population significantly larger than the USSR, it served as a conscription force for Great Britain. Regardless of how one chooses to view history Germany was significantly out numbered and any drawn out war only benefited the allies which Hitler knew well. His largest advantage was they had years of mobilization before starting the war, they where already in a war economy by the start of the war. They had a head star which resulted in their early victories, war was only fought on their terms. It was widely known in Germany if France decided to invaded Germany while Germany was at war with Poland they would have lost than and there.

@@GainingDespair Wow I didn't know about that last part at all, that's fascinating. Cheers for the detailed answer!

God Bless those Poles, tough people.

Canada is britain's bitch vassal

They fall under British Empire/ Commonwealth

Canucks

@@Fyrdman Canada had been a seperate country before WWII started , yet the had had the last say in some political issues.It was like a province but much much more autonomous than a province.

@@RootGroves-hl8kt it was a dominion