They were other reasons too. Germany knew what atrocities it had done and allies won't forget it that's why they fought so hard in end even though they're going to loose cause they knew they will face consequences of those atrocities. That's why many German suicided and you know how Red army treated civilians when reaching Berlin. Same with japan

@@ShubhamMishrabro One big factor of the german fighting strength was the internal Unit cohesion. The Wehrmacht managed during most of the war to keep units from the same regions together, rarely rotating in soldiers from entirely different backgrounds. That achieved a high level of fighting strength since the individual soldiers fought for their comrade in the foxhole next to them. There are some modern studies about the cohesion factor. It's pretty interesting.

@@ShubhamMishrabro "Same with Japan" such a fucking vague statement. If you're gonna talk about German atrocities talk about Japanese ones too, they were worst than Germans.

@@BatCostumeGuy i didn't explained German atrocities nor japan. I just mentioned the word atrocities

@@roverrange3674 I will read it

Lmafo bruh :)))

This comment, i love it xD

I need to play some HOI4 right now. Thanks for reminding lol!

HOI4 Player Pog

Man of culture I see

In a way, the Italians' incompetence saved the world.

😅 But on the other hand they know how to cook, to love and to live. Pizza, Michelangelo are much better contributions to human culture than the best tank ever.

Good old Italian engineering. "I donta care if it works , this is the way it is suppose to go!" The Italian cars look good parked up. They spent most of the war looking fascistionable, but the Germans were stylish.

​@Thomas BI'm not American nor Italian but remember that WW2 Italy is not modern Italy. Italy couldn't afford to go to war in WW2. They had to focus on the economy. Mussolini sent Italian soldiers to war with sandals on their feet. Poor equipment, lack of uniforms, etc. That's why most Italians hate Mussolini. He sent young men to die basically. My grandfather once told me this "Italian generals were inefficient because they got their role by being strong supporters of fascism and Mussolini's ideology rather than for their capabilities but Italian soldiers were insanely brave. Most Italians were against Mussolini for siding with the Germans and even hated him for it. Italians were forced to fight a war they wanted no part in." Moral of the story: You can't do anything effectively if you have no interest in doing it in the first place.

@@michealwilliams41 Yeah, what your grandfather told you is true. The thing about Italian soldiers being cowards is just Propaganda. They had balls of steel to go to war in those conditions. The problem was that fool of Mussolini and his generals. Italians wanted no part in it. I fought alongside with them a few years ago, those men are incredibly brave.

Hitler: FUCK YEAH LET'S GOO OPERATION UHHHHH

@@BatCostumeGuy It would have been mighty convenient if Hitler had a stroke that day. ^^

@@Paludion Agree

Watch out for Operation Uh

I was confused I thought it was was taken out for some ridiculous reason.

Factz Hitler wasn't playing they got a little help from the Japanese, the Italians switched out an left the Germans hanging tho.

LOL, believe it if you will but El Alamein gives the lie to that notion.

I dunno the brits (+ colonies) were fighting 3 axis powers at once plus the french collaborators alone at one point. And they had a tiny army to do so.

@@wittyexquisite japanese is busy, and italians were afk..haha

@@bmiha Bit of a strange argument, if the UK was connected to the continent we would have a completely different world. The UK wouldnt have such a small army either, it would probably not even exist as an entity and instead you would have an Anvigin empire of france and the UK. In fact a lot of the british character evolves from the fact it is an island, it is one of the most liberal (in the true meaning of the word) places on earth and a large part of that is the fact that it is so safe compared to Europe historically, that is also the reason that the British people were so against the Nazis and the communists (to a lesser degree). But more to your point Paris fell because the french didnt think the germans could get tanks through the Ardern, if there was a huge geography shift then it is unlikly that the same tactic (maginot line) would have been used.

World wide Marxists only discuss the evils of Nazi Germany while downplaying the evils of the USSR.

it's all political they don't give a shit about people and even the soldiers

@@adityakumar4087 I thought you were a Nazi for a second I'm not used to seeing it as a Hindu symbol especially on WW2 videos 😭

@@adityakumar4087 Listen, You're disrespecting my Nation's pride -Tiranga by altering it's design and that's offensive. The symbol in middle of Tricolor must be Dharm chakra but you foolishly have replaced it with Nazi Haken cruez(Hooked cross) and mind you it's not Swastika. So if you're in your right mind, then plz change your profile pic.

The soviet union was too dangerous cause of its resources. France's plan was to make a stalemate with germany to win in the long term so declaring war on Russia would make them lose because The soviets had all the resources and manpower they needed. As it turns out nothing would be different in france if the USSR was declared by the allies. But if the USSR joined against britain its labor force together with the germans and german technology would build a massive navy and airforce with the latest technology and with the manpower and resources of the soviets it would be easy to defeat britain if the preparations were done correctly. So after those considerations they didnt declare war which led to britain not surrendering and the soviets basically winning the war against germany. Also France and Britain made a treaty with poland but it said protection against germany not Russia Note: the french knew about the speed of the wehrmact so france knew a stalemate was its advantage. But with the german tactis and soviet help it wouldnt have any advantage over germany

Accurate

Have u seen the banned documentaries? Theyre like 6-10 hours long goes in depth no propaganda

or maybe it was crystal meth what drove them xD

+midnight rider This doesn't surprise me, same is true vice versa. I work as Historian with a focus on Contemporary German History for the IFZ in München/Munich & also have Veterans in my Family, and they also all speak respectful of their former Enemies. I also talked to countless of WW2 Veterans from all the Countries, both in private & at Veteran Meetings. It's funny how you have a hard time finding actual WW2 Veterans speaking as disrespectful & insulting about their former Enemies as pretty much a large amount of KZfaq Comments on WW2 related Videos. Always makes me wonder how unaware most People are that f.e. American and German WW2 Veterans becoming close Friends, going together on War Cemetaries (of both Axis and Allies) to pay Respects was/is very common. I basically grew up around Axis and Allied WW2 Veterans going fishing together here in Germany, have Beers and BBQ in the Summer, even tell eachother War Stories from their Side & Experience, as if they never tried to kill one another during the War. Now compare this to any Comment Section on KZfaq about any WW2 related Video and a lot of Comments & Discussions you will find under these Videos. That said, luckily it's not only such Comments under WW2 Videos but also the good kind like yours! Prost & Cheers from the Berchtesgadener Land in the Bavarian Alps

@@chartreux1532: Thanks for your reply. Generally speaking, that seems to be the case, but my dad's brother fought in the Pacific during WW2. Great guy, but i think he held a bit of a grudge against the Japanese because of witnessing kamikaze attacks and other brutal acts by the Japanese. He passed away last year. Damn I miss that generation.

@@midnightrider7648 Great stuff.

@@dr.debajyotibose2928: 👍thanks. Not a minute goes by that I don't miss them.

Patton was in awe of the germans, and regretted the destruction of germany, and claimed that we had fought the "wrong enemy". Then he was assassinated.

if 1v1, Germany will easily beat those all European countries and their allies including America and russia

K I dunno about that. Germany alone wouldnt have the resources to beat a lot of the allied countries alone really. Britain is on a fortress with the english channel as its walls, America had the entire Atlantic ocean and the best aircraft carrier fleet in history and Russia’s industrial capability and size dwarfed Germany’s by triple fold. Germany doesn’t have anything to counter any of those.

Bruh Bruh Point 1: Britain DOMINATED the skies and the seas. Germany’s land force could only land on Britain if aerial and naval superiority was achieved. Unfortunately for them, the battle of Britain already proved that Germany’s air force and navy was clearly inept and too underdeveloped to actually achieve dominance. Point 2: Hitler wasnt the cocky one. His generals were. Hitlers plan was to take the caucasus and take the oil fields there, the German Generals however were very insistent that taking moscow as early as possible was the better option. It was only until November of the early 1940s did the Generals back down from their plans to take Moscow as quickly as possible since Germany ran out of petrol quicker than they anticipated. Hitler only continued to order them to take moscow anyway as that mistake was brought by the generals on themselves. Point 3: Russia’s industrial infrastructure was left relatively intact and was relocated to siberia prior to operation Barbarossa. Meaning the soviets could still supply and arm more troops if they so wished, even if moscow was taken. Plus, with the destruction of the Caucasus oil fields after the Stalingrad siege, Germany no longer had the fuel and supply it needed to overwhelm russia any longer than 1941. Meaning, their offensive had a very small deadline to be completed until the Soviets recover from their early losses. Germany only wanted to fight a short and quick war with Russia as their supplies and men could not contend with the USSR’s vastly larger industrial complex. If the German army gave the soviet union just one month to breathe, the USSR could easily replace their losses and return even stronger. Unfortunately for Germany, their forces simply didnt have the numbers to take all of russia in one momentum’s push. Russia simply had too much land and forces for that to happen. Even with the west front command’s help, Germany still wouldnt be able to outnumber the Soviets and deliver the momentum Operation Barbarossa required to work.

Bruh Bruh Germany never focused on Naval superiority because they lacked iron primarily. Not because of their enemies. Even throughout WW2, Hitler had put significant focus on the Kriegsmarine and built a sizeable U-boat fleet even tho the army needed the iron and supplies put into those submarines. If the enemy was the main reason the Germans lost focus on Naval building, they would have never bothered to create development plans on the U-boats and Germany’s ill forgotten battleships/cruisers. Germany was importing iron from neutral Sweden in the late 1930s but the Brits were able to stop the trade. Without swedish steel imports, the hopes for Germany’s navy never came to fruition. Additionally, Germany never seeked to dominate nor had the capability to destroy Britain with their air force either. Goering always insisted that he could take on the RAF, but his incompetence led to the RAF’s recovery. History has shown the Germany had neither a competent commander and a powerful industrial economy to support the Luftwaffe and they never would have due to the fact Goering, the idiot that he is, was in charge of the air force at the time. Throughout the entire time, Germany seeked to eliminate Britain diplomatically and morally as a war in the air and skies was simply impossible given that the british eliminated Germany’s ability to get iron imports. No iron, no plane/ships for germany. As for hitler, the ostfront command brought the issue upon themselves as I already stated. Manstein’s and the German command’s over eagerness to end the war caused Germany to push towards Moscow when Hitler’s original directives were to push towards Stalingrad. The ostfront command only chickened out when supplies got low and the decision to abandon Army B and leave them to be the lone force to take the oil fields got delayed. Hitler merely just allowed the ostfront command to face their own consequences for their incompetent decisions.

@@Fylnnn Many times Germany attacked Russia. But Russia always wins.

Are you sure you are talking about the same germans and russians we know from ww2 ? The first trying to exterminate russian people and the second, trying their dammest to survive the extermination ?

Yh? Tell that to the 2 million soviet POW that were starved to death and hurded like cattle into fields by your grandfather's colligues

@@tonyjoka2346 that.. literally has nothing to do with what he said

@@zero.Identity it did since the Germans had no respect for the Soviets and genocides them

@@tonyjoka2346Stalin starved way more of his own citizens than that 😂

Do you mean when Prussia lost to Napoleon or the time when Prussia nearly lost to Russia and only by luck Frederik (most certainly not that Great) came out on top in the 7 years war? Or the time when Prussia wasn't able to win against France without the help of Bavaria and secretly gifting them Neuschwanstein? Prussia wasn't impressive and also not really admired, it was made fun about, it was an army with a country and not a country with an army. Other nations like that are North Korea and such. Nobody admires North Korea.

​@@dabozzcrgBattle of Rossbach (1757): During the Seven Years' War, Frederick the Great of Prussia defeated a combined French and Austrian army, establishing Prussia as a major European power.Battle of Leuthen (1757): Another significant battle in the Seven Years' War, Frederick the Great's Prussian forces decisively defeated a larger Austrian army.Battle of Torgau (1760): In the final years of the Seven Years' War, Prussia, alongside its British allies, achieved a victory against the Austrians and Russians.Battle of Valmy (1792): During the French Revolutionary Wars, Prussian forces under the Duke of Brunswick were defeated by the French revolutionary army. While this was a Prussian defeat, it marked a turning point in French history.Battle of Jena-Auerstedt (1806): Prussia suffered a significant defeat at the hands of Napoleon's French forces in this battle, which led to the occupation of Prussia.Battle of Leipzig (1813): Prussia, along with other coalition forces, achieved victory over Napoleon's army, marking a major turning point in the Napoleonic Wars.Battle of Waterloo (1815): While the Battle of Waterloo is often associated with the defeat of Napoleon, Prussian forces under Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher played a crucial role in the victory alongside the British.

First Schleswig War (1848-1851): Prussia, along with its allies, achieved victory over Denmark, gaining control of the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein.Austro-Prussian War (1866): Also known as the Seven Weeks' War, Prussia decisively defeated the Austrian Empire, leading to the dissolution of the German Confederation and the establishment of the North German Confederation under Prussian leadership.Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871): Prussia, along with its allies in the North German Confederation, achieved a resounding victory over France, leading to the unification of Germany and the proclamation of the German Empire in 1871.Battle of Gravelotte (1870): This battle was a pivotal moment in the Franco-Prussian War, where Prussian forces, led by Helmuth von Moltke, defeated the French, leading to the encirclement of the French army at Metz.Battle of Sedan (1870): In this battle, Prussian forces under King Wilhelm I and Chancellor Otto von Bismarck captured Emperor Napoleon III of France, a significant event in the war.

As you can see, Prussia won many important battles and wars.

Well because Germany is still economical powerhouse lot of Chinese factories actually use german made machines and small parts for their chips other than that car and food industries are enormous. Big food brands in the world are from Germany etc.

They are biggest economical power in Europe and even tho they don’t spend more than 2 precent GDP on military because of NATO they still hold major political power.

Today sure. But German products were sketchy at best for quite a long time as well.

@@mando_dablord2646 are you kidding? They were even better before. At least cars and appliances/equipments and tools

No wonder why the car I saw has a weird name. It was made in Germany

Damn bro. Cool.

I'm so sorry to say this, but your history professor said something really unfair and stupid. Sure, tigers and panthers were great machines, but they had some problems, like failing rate (look at eastern front) , being hard to repair, using too much fuel... Sure, they had superb armor and good firepower, but they were too costly for germans. And no, german panzers (most likely panthers) werent worth 5 shermans. Panthers had better statistics on paper, but they were, for example, less flexible than shermans: due to German position, they were used mostly to fight other tanks. Because of that, one can't simply compare those machines: they were designed for a diffrent purpose, diffrent doctrine.

Oh, and about small arms. I'm not sure if the US officer told about modern guns or WW2 guns, but, eh, in the reality of ww II it wasn't that simple. MP40 was a great gun, but it had its disadvandages. In my opinion, PPS (pulemiot sudayeva) was even better. They had Worse stats, but better reliability and they were easier to repair. MP40 and, generally speaking, german arms had one great disadvantage: complexity.

​@@michadybalski6687 Did you try out the guns?

@@jozen5384 I've personally shot a K98, it's vastly overrated. Definitely nowhere near a Garand with more rounds and semi-auto or Lee-Enfield with similar characteristics but faster fire rate and twice as many rounds in the magazine. I've only held the g43 and p08, but the g43 is reputable for being pretty garbage

Also how these historians just brush aside every single point made in the video and claim the complete opposite, without providing any arguments besides words like "actually", "stupid", "retarded" etc.

yeah yeah

)

This is where you improve your knowledge

History buffs hang out in these videos

Actually their tanks sucked ass, they broke down too much, also they had many different variants of tanks and their factories couldnt keep up... Their soliders tho were effective and drugged up.

@@trivunkonjik7413 yet they managed to counquer most of Europe and bombed the fkc out of UK yea right

@@trivunkonjik7413 if you think German ww2 technology “sucked ass” then you’re not even worth debating

@@nickpapagiorgio9872 their tech wasnt better it was just their creativity, like putting radar and radio on everything. fun fact, french tanks were actually stronger than german tanks however i cant deny that the luftwaffe had better technology

@@AB-rv2lj USSR, USA, UK, France, etc needed to work together to defeat Germany alone. Lol. It proved how strong Germany was at that time.

The irony is that Hitler himself visited Napoleon graveyard when marching trough Paris after conquered it and ended up making the same tactical mistake as him.

Mongols: Noob

@@vladlazar7560 fr bro

Attack with all forces Moskau take the City make Castle out of it Stay in the winter there and let Russia bleed out attacking

@@vladlazar7560 hitler was idiot and big reason why germany lost ww2

-company of heroes some Russian soldier-

Germany wasn't technologically superior. Not even close. - The British and Americans had superior radar, the single most important invention of the war. - The Americans developed nuclear weapons. - The British and Americans developed the proximity fuse, one of the most important inventions of the war that most people have never heard of. - The Americans had the M1 Garand and Carbine, both of which were a vastly superior rifle to the German Mauser 98. (Yes, I'm aware of the StG 44, but this rifle was developed too little, too late.) - The British and Americans both developed long ranged four engine heavy bombers. The American B-29, by itself, was an incredible technological achievement. - The Scotts invented modern antibiotics in 1942, which was quickly pushed to the front lines, greatly enhancing the recovery of wounded Allied soldiers. - America invented the "walkie-talkie" (AM SCR-536), a stunning enhancement in aiding infantry on the battlefield. - While Germans were using mostly horses and donkeys to run supply lines, Americans/British were using Jeeps. - ...and so on. The only really important tech advantage Germany had was jet fighters, and maybe submarines, though the latter was easily counterbalanced by Allied sub-hunting technology.

@@ikesteroma As for developing nuclear weapons there were many scientist and technicians from many countries like Britain, Hungary, Denmark, Italy and the Americans . This was an international multicultural multinational group who developed the atomic bomb! Basic research and formed a team! Yes America provided the facilities and money but the brains came from many nations including America and Germany! Names like Fermi, Selard, Teller, Oppenheimer, Heisenberg. As Hitler called nuclear science “Jewish Physics!” and poo poo’d it!

@@alanfenick1103 Yes, I know. I'm well aware that many allied innovations were developed by shared research between America and Britain. Either way, Germany was nowhere close to being technologically superior.

@@ikesteroma I think the proximity fuse and the radar were the technologies that won the war.

Very true. Well said

And Swedish steel (*khm-khm*)

Right, im pretty sure the Germans had trouble with their fuel freezing in the russian winter. Shows you how cold it gets there. And I complain when it gets below freezing one degree.

Germany had a major oil deficit because they stupidly went to war with the major suppliers in the world. This can't be used as an excuse because it was a decision they made and the reason other countries don't willfully throw themselves into surprise attacks against 1/3 of the world's population. The entire logistic situation is a sign of german ignorance and incompetence and isn't merely "bad luck" or a bad situation. It is why aggressive wars are insane. Imagine America going to War with Saudia Arabia because they don't like Islam, then complaining that they can't fuel their tanks and say that is why they lost. Insane.

@@orclover2353 they went for russia to get fuel fields by winning the war

The Germans called it "bewegungskrieg" which means maneuver warfare.

@@Michael-cw9mr Bewegungskrieg especially in contrast to the "Stellungskrieg", positional warfare of WW1. Another term would be "Gefecht der verbundenen Waffen" ,combined arms.

Yes, and when the Soviets got their act together, they used their own version of that (called: Deep Battle Art of Warfare) to defeat the German invader. Oddly enough, the fulcrum moment of that happened when Germany was forced to adopt a more defensive (Stellungs) posture. Soviet Stavka (basically J.Stalin) started to allow his generals more flexibility and freedom of operations, while his opponent A.Schicklegruber (aka. A. Hitler) tightened his grip on the Wehrmacht and more relied on his (rather unilateral and sometimes but not always nonsensical) approach in dictating even the minutest details in the German Wehrmacht operations. The German obedience to "Befehl ist befehl" mentality eventually succumbed to the Soviet more flexible and ruthless execution of battle campaigning.

@@Centurion101B3C Moron hitler wouldn't even give his eastern troops winter supplies (as it would be bad for morale, and it was an ultimatum). Hitler's stupidity was so great, that later in the war, Churchill wouldn't help any "assassinate hitler" plans, as then someone who wasn't a complete moron may have taken over.

@@Michael-cw9mr yep. Used in the Austro and Franco-Prussian war.

Nerrrrrrd

@@joshuabayles3141 YUP

Very interesting, thank you.

I like this fact, whoever i would still call it blitzkrieg because I'm afraif my tongue would tie itself like a pretzel by just reading that

@@REEEPROGRAM XD I know what you mean, it took me a lot of practice to get it write and I still don't

Steve Minecraft

@@darius6616 Doge Japan

@@fanta-cool7532 i think cheems is from hong kong

Thx

@@darius6616 Oops

You must of felt really proud pointing that out

average i watch oversimplified viewer

@@Edgar-rw4ru he meant to write 'must have felt'. its just a typo

He was first appointed but at the following election he was elected.

@@gerhardswihla1099 No, he got not elected. He just forbid every other party, so in the elections, his party was obviously the only one, who got voted.

It took my father 40 years to process his youth and the development of the war, where his father was lost in captivity after end of war; mainly by endless watching historical TV war documentaries, which at the time I did not understand.

Patton and Eisenhower were more brilliant。

The leadership was the result of the militarized society Germany had become since 1870 and the resulting Prussian officer corps. The Germans studied their WW1 experience extensively so as not to make the same mistakes and put it all into practice. Their training and leadership reflected this, meanwhile the British and French were busy trying hard to forget world war 1 but were absolutely sure another war would be fought the same way i.e. trench warfare again. The Germans knew tanks made static warfare null and void and set about proving it -

@@robertmaybeth3434 Well，Germany defeated Russia in WW1。I think Germany made new mistakes in the USSR in WW2。The cruelty to the civilian population was both a crime and a mistake。

@@robertmaybeth3434 The Germans still lost。Hitler had the idea that the Germans would win because he thought they were superior，but Hitler neglected logistics and strategy。

The main reason the Germans were so effective initially was nobody else was actually prepared for war , the first real opposition the Germans came up against was the British Royal Air Force and they LOST , the advanced and worlds first integreted radar system proved too much for the Germans to deal with , then they took on the Russians who were woefully under prepared but as soon as the Russians got their act together guess what ....they LOST !! then they decided to take on the worlds biggest industrial power the USA and that really was the end , so in conclusion they were totally ineffective even with a head start mainly because they were plain f**king stupid .

Yeah, interesting topic. Hope he'll include events leading up to it. His failed socialist movement, financial crisis, bad governing, how Italy didn't get parts of Croatia as they thought they would. Entire story is pretty cool.

@Nominee For Sealand’s Chancellor he wanted to create a neo roman empire

Spoiler, some modern italian historians or history teachers speculate that all the march stuff was just a public stunt because he didn't want to appear weak as he was technically appointed tacitly by the king because he found him amusing. Also he started with socialist stuff to gain popularity but when he he got in power he basically beat workers up if they dared to have a strike.

And don't forget to include how the people hanged him & his mistress, desecrating their corpses afterwards.

As a German I can assure you they were brainwashed. Even my grandparents can't think totally clear about this topics today. When it comes to the hate of jews, it didn't start with the Nazi party, they only brought the hate to another level. Christians hated jews since hundreds of years, Martin Luther was one of their biggest enemies (f.e. in the book "Of the jews and their lies") and the Nazis partly justified the holocaust with quotes of Luther. And Hitler said, he's only doing what the church is doing since 500 years, only better.

Important to note, Blitzkrieg was never a real doctrine.

This is just nazi propaganda. Read "Blitzkrieg Legende" before you clown yourself any further with lies perpetuated by Nazi generals after WW2.

@@AodhMacAuliffe no? U are brainwashed

@@AodhMacAuliffe even allies that won ww2 gives credit andrecognition for brilliant tactics mastermind from great general like guderian, Mastein etc

@@alifimran9049 Yes, because they only heard their part of the story. Read an actual book. Germany had no chance at winning and the high command was riddled with idiots.

Ah Monsieur Oktan with his cash to buy Moskowien

Money...

A nutshell very aptly describes them.

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/g7Cah9R9u9mWomg.html

Caffeine? Oh my sweet sweet summer child. It was fucking meth :D

Welcher bundestatt bisse auch hesse?

Uraa

@@hessen5498 Ja, Frankfurt am Main ♥️

@@f.j.4795 lol geil einfach same wusste doch das du hesse bist

Should be called Panzerland tho lol

Just inform us k

Lol run

Study “The art of War”

Hail Joe!

Have you conquered Poland now?

Italy shouldve stayed out of the first world war. It wasnt real empire yet and yet it took on a second hand empire in face of A&H and took shitty loses and couldnt capitalise on that later. Shoildve tried to trade what it could for high prices and gain land for doing peace. No1 will give them high quantities but gainz are gainz. In ww2 they were being driven off by not an apex Balkan land army so what does that speak for their readiness? Greece was up to 7 times less populated and didnt had tradition of raising as large army in % as other balkanites. Italy otherwise shouldve tried to maintain its holding in Anatolia too rather expand. If staying out of war then after war they can be in better position to start building an empire. Absolutely no1 among the big powers will want to have a war so Italy can go in Balkans, Africa and Anatolia and no1 will be stopping them.

Italy had worse technology and a lower population. They didnt have the vast territory germany soon took either. There were also many opposed to mussolini, unlike hitler.

Germany and Italy are the contrasts of socialism, while they both agreed to the supremacy of the state over the multinational revolution, the approach to economics was different the Italians consolidated every industry into 6 messy sectors ran by corrupt politicians with loyalty to Mussolini. Hitlers Germany barly could wrestle anything away from the private sector so used fear and brutal punishments to frighten every sector into performing it's best. Germany could have had crappy tanks for sent nearly a million men into Africa to be captured by the allies but Germany had the policy of command the same way as the private sector the best or most ruthless won. Such was the commanders that the best and most ruthless often won making Germany efficent. Also the propaganda of germany was so strong defeats rarely stockpiled into routs. The Italians never really had a high socalist party, and many joined the facist side, so the moderates in contrast never backed the state. The Reds several times seized key germanic spots including Bavaria at one point and the army was powerless, frie kore or free corps showed up under no loyalty to the democratic state and put it down. It was clear the communists wanted red Germany to take over the world by locking arms with USSR, weather they believed in the super state is unknown. But the right wing which believed in kings backed Hindenburg and the conservatives where appalled by the communists, when faced with the destruction of german culture they chosen to double down on german culture. The socialists of the Nazi argued the state and germany wasn't just the best it was superior and offered a way forward without destroying everything german, however unlike Spain the right wing elements in the army would be brainwashed to believe Hitler was a God and the new king while conservatives would be later bullied by any means necessary after Catholics and Lutheran priests became a nuisance. Lastly germany imprisoned any decenters so successfully the state had no effective opposition, the Italian state lacked much backing and when it was clear the army couldn't or wouldn't go forward any more the Italian people jumped ship and overthrew the noise of the facist government.

also Italy had deficit of every strategic resource, iron, oil, rubber, coal, brain

The Italians managed to invent Nutella during world war II. Even when chocolate became expensive and scarce due to rationing in Europe. They were efficient, buddy, they were awesome!

Actually only about 20% of the German Army was modern and mechanized. They were still using horses to move supplies. The British and American Armies were fully mechanized. With that and the USSR the Germans had zero chance.

The germans have invented a similiar system to the CROWS. Which allows you to fire a top mounted MG from the inside.

Less effective? Tiger Tank killed your toy tanks. 🤟

@@evilspirit3456 Yes, but for every Tiger the Germans built the Americans could build 100 Sherman's AND 10 transport ships to ship them to Europe AND enough destroyers and jeep aircraft carriers to escort the convoy of transport ships. Oh, and during that time the Soviets would produce a dozen, or whatever, T34s themselves. Germany was finished at Stalingrad. In a war of production it was Uber fucked.

@@shrimpflea thats only at the start of ww2

It glitched, if you weren't aware.

@@omega0195 I know I was just joking around

@@brandonarmienti6875 you better be.

@@omega0195 Gonna call it Operation Uh now out of spite.

@@mando_dablord2646 you're wrong

true

That would explain why hitler lost against ussr just like napoleon did

Napoleon lost in Russia too。

Napoleon just lost because of the Russian winter. The Nazis couldn't even plan a war the right way, when Stalin moved the whole war industry to the Ural in just 6 months their plans were literally finished making them unable to maintain progress, other tactics/priorities would've been successful, but luckily the GröFaZ was Hitler himself who knew nothing about war tactics besides Blitzkrieg a tactic originated in WW1

@@derunfassbarebielecki No one loses because of the weather。The weather is the same for both sides。

@@aristedecomgmailcom If one side didn't take the right clothing to the battlefield the weather is the issue. Blitzkrieg is a pretty vulnerable tactic, even the slightest slowdown can break the whole frontline. Thats why the Nazis were dumb af, incompetent to plan wars further than the next step.

Very solid points all around and a fair perspective.

Also don't forget the moral of the soldiers through massive propaganda. What should also not be forgotten is the fact that they robbed huge amounts of money, gold and other resources from the humans they have murdered.

Amazing points, very interesting man. Opened new perspectives for me. :)

@Nilon yep and i talked about the tactical befefits of their experience but it also leads to the groth of veterants in the army, wich is a good perspective ;) PS : we might consider that these facts are true for the early war perdiod but the perspectives are really not the same for the late war perdiod (the german army's peak of efficience is know to be in 1941, at the start of barbarossa).

Merci Jean-Pierre, bcp plus éclairant que le reportage sur le haricot de paimpol

The name is in the subtitles.

@@auroraflos2498 I don’t think the average, fluent English speaker turns on the subtitles.

@@johnnyc4717 I was on mobile, so the captions were turned on automatically, I think. I just wanted to point out that the name was in the subtitles.

Maybe he did that intentionally to avoid demonitization by yt.. I saw a video before where they used iron cross instead of swastika symbol. Im not sure myself, just a thought.

And prepared. None of the Germany's opponents war really prepared in that or other department. The first time anyone fielded forces that were actually prepared and determined to fight was 1942. About the time the Germans stopped being so succesful.

@@SparrowNoblePoland The French were equipped with better tanks, airplanes and had a bigger navy, yey their mentality didn’t favor them

Experience is also huge in any war. The Germans got a jump start in gaining it through their operations pre-war, and then it took a few years for everyone else to catch up. If you're a French soldier/officer firing his rifle in anger for the first time and knowing what it's like getting shot at, figuring out how you should position yourself, when it's right to retreat, when to advance, make a stand, etc.- and the Germans on the other side have done it at least a few times they can "outplay" you before you have the time and experience to figure out what you should be doing and how you and your squadmates should be organising yourselves. Story is different after you've been in a few engagements but by then it was too late.

The french had better tanks, yes, but their aviation was in shambles, with a lot of obsolete planes, their C3 was awful and the troops were ill trained, remember that parodoxaly the germans' biggest vantage was the Luftwaffe was relatively new, so they didn't had any old aircraft.

@@ndetavy2341 They suffered from bad command and organization. Planes were not necessarily better, lots of them were heavily obsolete. You're right about their mentality. The French command quickly started expecting their own army to surrender, and civilians had hostile attitude towards soldiers that wanted to fight. France could have lasted for months to come if they only had a will and fighting spirit, and even after the fall, if they had created a strong resistance in the Central Massif, Germans would be forced to keep several divisions out there all the time.

Their enemies were also not ready for war and they were If they hadn't attacked when they did, their offensive could have bogged down and it would have become a war of attrition which Germany was not going to win

Accept for the battle of Britain, 303 not to mention Monte Cassino.

@@jamesricker3997 Germany went into the war with no oil and no money... It was going to be a war of attrition no matter what.

@The One This entire comment section is full of fucking neo nazis and you're part of it... Germany lost as soon as they thought they could take on the world. Everyone just needed time to actually prepare and then it went downhill for them.

@@alexlaw1892 You forgot FOOD.

@Top Secret . Cool story.

@Top Secret and meth...

The Panzers didn＇t get through the Red Army lines surrounding Berlin。

@@aristedecomgmailcom that's because you can't feed tanks methamphetamine like you can infantrymen

not only Hindenburg, but also the votes of conservative and liberal MPs in Parliament, who opposed the next two larger parties (socialists and communists) far more than they opposed the Nazis. This is often airbrushed from official narratives of history

And: The NSDAP was NOT a "right" but a"left" party- The National Socialist German Workers Party... It is historically wrong to say, Hitler was politically right- winged. The Nazis were in the same side side as the communists just under another colour and in a more nationalist manner...The so called right conservatives were one of Hitlers declared political enemies...

@@Solihull88 No, this is a conspiracy theory. The right conservatives were not Hitlers enemies. They wanted to bring back a monarchy and so gave the power to Hitler (lock for von Papen, Brüning). He was also heavily supported by the heavy industrialists. The only slightly "communist" in the NSDAP was the SA leadership, but they got killed in 1934 by Hitler. Hitler also said, that the communists and socialists are the worst and he tried to end the communism overall. And whoch "communist" laws did Hitler make, when he was in power?

@@kwtr1609 Der Idee der NSDAP sind wir die deutsche Linke... Nichts ist uns verhasster als der rechtsstehende nationale Besitzbürgerblock" Quelle: Joseph Goebbels 1931 Der Angriff

@@Solihull88 Utter claptrap. Lie on lie on lie

Yes! And taking all those smaller countries individually would minimise losses while giving them more soldiers and factories etc. Eg. They lost 2000 men taking Norway, but over 5000 norwegians joined the german army. Countries like hungary, romania, bulgaria, croatia region would be very supportive of germany and are often overlooked.

yeah and doctrine was a huge one. Blitzkrieg, along with radios gave them a huge advantage over countries like France in 1940

@@godlovesyou1995 Because their value in terms of fighting force was negligible. Even their biggest ally, Italy, was a liability most of the time. The SS-Divisions made up of foreigners were usually pretty weak. So were the Armies of the other Axis powers. For example it were the units of supporting nations that held the flanks at Stalingrad where the Sowjets forced the attack and achieved encirclement.

The French,British and Polish armies were trained and equiped. The reason germany won the battle of France was because of Luck and the allied airforce being sleepy

It is true but for west Europe mainly. The Soviets knew what future will be. Their army was getting experience here and there too. The great purge is either false in quantity or treason at its finest. In west I got a conspiracy theory. The west allowed Germany to win there. They waited for Germany to do what it wants. If they had attacked when it was most convenient Germany wouldve wasted a lot of time on home soil before it could potentially go for Paris. Also German tanks werent better than French tanks.

Everyone was fighting? The hell do you mean no balls, poland fought, Denmark, Belgium, France, UK, they only lasted 1 year before they started loosing heavily

@@Palaemon907 think he meant the British and French did not attack Germany during their initial expansion, they waited until it was too late.

@@jfloes90 Exactly. Czechoslovakia was allied with France and UK, but France and UK betray them to avoid war and give Czechoslovakia to Germany on silver platter. No one suggest that stolen lands should be returned to Czech and Slovaks.

I mean when you lose several generations of men because of egos and treaties just years ago, most probably aren’t gonna start another war over production of an army.

Dont forget greece , pushed italy back - after that germans invaded.. a tiny country resisted for 4 years the occupation..

yeah but the "Instructors" weren't the best and bullying was common. i wouldn't be giving them too much credit.

@@captainpinky8307 They made good officers & soldiers though.

This actually makes sense. They're leadership hard carried them throughout the war. But that also only went so far as well. They ran into problems that neither the leadership or shitstache could deal with.

@@mando_dablord2646 Your dang right they did. Though when one thinks about it, what happens if you give little stach the epiphany that he can't beat big stach in a short walk-in campaign and he instead continues the pact for another year or so? We saw just what Croutany could do to the world's leading land power after 8 months of proper preparations. Especially when they determined their performance in the Polish campaign to be less than adequate.

😂

"Millions of you will die and that's a sacrifice I'm willing to make"

@@roberttheiss6377 "Some of you may die, but thats a sacrafice I'm willing to make"

That and he asked Roosevelt for millions of dollars, oil, food and material including weapons and ships. USA gave him all that during Lend-Lease because without that the Germans would of made it to the Middle East oil fields and then it would of been game over for soviets.

@@premieroptimist1277 IF the Germans had reached the oil fields, they may have won the war. Their only fault was their lack of oil. With oil they could mass produce some damn good tanks, submarines to destroy the British Navy and aircraft to regain their air superiority. But, alas, the 35,000 T-34 were too much for the German front line

You are an honrable bulgarian who knows the truth about ww2.Thanks for your comment

After Kursk the Red Army was more effective。

@@aristedecomgmailcom What? Ähm no! The germans still inflicted more casualities to the red army then the red army did to them. There are very few occasions when the red army didn't lost more men then the Wehrmacht!

@@tizi087 But the Red Army still won。And the Wehrmacht still lost。 At the end of the war the Wehrmacht soldiers became POWs。

@@tizi087 At the end of the war the Wehrmacht became POWs。 POWs are lost men。

@@aristedecomgmailcom yeah but you dont need to be more effective to win a war. In the end the soviets won, thats vorrect but they lost more men and Equipment than the Wehrmacht making the Wehrmacht more effective Effectiveness means to inflict more loses than receiving loses yourself, kt doesnt matter if you win or Lose to have a high effectivness

Nazi encirclements failed at the Battle of the Bulge。The US Army refused to surrender： ＂Nuts！＂

innovation at the squad and platoon levels: called Auftragtaktik in German, Was started 1807 by Calusewitz in the Eastern German provinces, and perfected by the Imperial Russian Army against Napoleon in 1812. It is described in great detail by Clausewitz notes / diaries on this war, edited and published by his wife after Clausewitz death. His advice and observations are very detailed and -sensible, going down to the storage of flower to feed the troops. His prose is very direct and sarcastic, nearly untranslatable I would judge.

Germany still lost 2 world wars lmao

The German General Staff was a mess and did not have the proper intelligence to even start a war, when they attacked Russia they knew nothing about the Russian strength or their industrial might. No proper plan was made or kept to which was their downfall.

@@johntruman4397 the fuck? have you ever informed yourself? thats the biggest bullshit i have ever heard. not to mention that the secrete service they had was unrivaled

Yup. The supposed superiority of Germany in WII is nothing but a myth. Germans had a few wunderwaffen but lots of horse-drawn supply lines.

I would argue the German tanks in 1939-40 were the best in the world while at the end of the war, they were only slightly better in some ways than the allies tanks with allied tanks being better in other ways. The Chieftain talks a lot about how the panzer 3 was likely the best tank in the world before the Sherman came out. While the French tanks may have had better armor and sometimes guns, and a lot of the times this wasn’t even the case, the crew layout of 5 men in very ergonomic positions and the much better vision of all positions but the commander especially, as well as the radios allow German tanks in 1939-40 to be much more effective than the French.

@@SgtBagel-fd1yi Adding to that was the fact that most Allied tanks early war used flags, hand signals, runners, and other outdated means of communication, while all German tanks had a 2 way radio, making the coordination of German armor vastly superior.

The bottom line is that the Germans won through a superior *doctrine* and leveraged their forces more effectively than the allies. A glaring example of this was the French dispersing their superior tanks as infantry support pieces, and not forming as many tank divisions as the Germans did. They simply misallocated a lot of their resources. In fact, the only area the Germans had a decided advantage both technically and numerically was in the Air. Outside of that, the allied nations were supposed to win on paper. Their strategy was brilliant though, and they simply leveraged their forces better in the end.

It isnt a well known fact btw everyone thinks that the german tanks were the best

that's true even their ancestor viking defeat Roman Empire and conquer eroupe after that and built new kingdom such as Frankish Empire, being a king in kingdom of england, denmark, norway, Holy Roman empire even Habsbrug Dynasty is one of the most powerful dynasty in the world at the time, and then we have Prussia, German Empire, Nazi and German nowadays. Fun fact queen victoria is german descent when she is coqueror 1/4 of the world. That's how powerful and dominance race was a german people. Not only dominance by power but in term of economy and intelligents too. In fact I'm not german.

@@TheKingofTheUniverse. lol coz im not German i can say it freely🤣🤣🤣

They only became that way due to EXTENSIVE restructuring programs (financial and materiel) from Britain and the Americans in the 1960's and 70's

@@VincenzoInfi Thats bullshit. The german economy was crazily strong before WWI in 1914. The german engineering was top class and the nobel prizes went to the famous german researchers. German Was the lingua franca in physics back then. In WWI nothing was destroyed since the war took place in France. Due to heavy destruction in WWII massive reconstruction was needed which fueled a strong economic recovery. The marshall plan for Germany was smaller than for the other european countries. It was clear that the german ppl will build up their old strength because they can!

@@LiquidIEx it’s not bullshit, since all your aryan ran along shit you had almost every house destroyed, a Europe in total was mostly destroyed by the Germans, which is why there is still some anti-aryan sentiment around today, the USA started the Truman plan I think it was called, to invest into all of Europe and west Germany

i oppose - it was power in numbers plus they gave them pervitin so they can carry on walking 7 days without fatigue - it worked best in 1939 and 1940 but then logistics plus reaction of allies resluted in 1945

Imagine if the Americans, in 1933 decided to invade Europe, and they spent 6 years developing armaments, doctrine, and training officers and soldiers...can you imagine the quality of troops and equipment that would bombard the continent. Only the germans, starting in the 1924, planned for an offensive war...their economy and military structure was built for one goal. To get revenge for 1918. This was before the nazis. They therefore had a huge advantage in preparation and time, and because they planned for an offensive war they developed offensive doctrine. This also explains why they were so pathetic in the open ocean when confronted with the Americans and British...those two nations planned to dominate via their navy, and invested heavily, even in the interwar years. The Americans had ZERO plans for another land war, and therefore invested nothing into development of a land army. To think that in 1 year after entering the war the Americans could land infantry and tanks to fight an enemy that had been preparing for 8 years is more amazing than anything the germans did. People forget that all of europe thought the great war was the last war, except for the germans. They planned for the 2nd war when the first one ended.

two ranks higher, not one. And the Pervitin thing is so overblown it's unreal. Stop.

The british army was much better trained, they didn't have 3 to 5 million soldiers tho, Germany was absolutely not highly trained.

@@orclover2353 yeah so pretty much the germans were just more prepared, which was evident enough. chamberlain was so focused on peace and france had such a shitshow of a military because of how arrogant they were.

Gotta make money somehow

Buy premium, bruh

samee

I'd say it's an extremely general explanation that ommits a lot of factors. The first is that the Germans in each of their big campaigns at the beginning of war, faced enemy that was more or less obsolete, disorganized and even unprepared. In case of Poland one thing is that we didn't have sufficient numbers of tanks and airplanes, and the latter were obsolete. So as orginization of most of the army except for maybe one experimental tank unit. But the biggest problem was that; 1. The general defense plan was never prepared and commanders had to improvise, 2. The country was penetrated by German spies and saboteurs, 3. The army was mobilised in about 50% in the state chaos due to repeated announced and called off mobilizations. Why mobilizations were called off? Because Great Britain pushed Poland to call mobilization off. 4. Polish borders were very long and thus difficult to defend. A rational decision would be to fall back and form a ring of defense deep inside the country, and wait for the Allies in such state. But Polish leaders were afraid that if they wouldn't fight for all lands, a Monachium scenario would repeat itself and the Allies would ask Poland to give undefended lands to Germany. So from the start Poland was not aiming to fight effectively, but aiming to show that certain lands were important for them. Also mind that on 17th of September when situation was for Poles was bad, but they still had some significant reserves, we were attacked by the Soviet Union. France had several problems as well. The biggest mistake they made, was obviously they ignored the route through Ardennes, although they had done an experiment proving the tanks could go through there. The structure and fighting tactics of the French army were obviously obsolete. Big part of their air force was obsolete as well. French also had terrible trouble with coordinating their attacks. Their tanks would attack without protection from the air force, and sometimes even without infantry. To call artillery support, French officers had to fill in a form, and send a soldier on a bicycle. The German success happened greatly thanks to the fact, that tanks would not only break through the front. They would search for the weakest point in defences, and then rally through the country, and French were unable to track their positions. French command officers would often realise position of German tankgs when they saw them in front of their command centers. But the reason France fell so quickly was mainly because of political decision to surrender. France still had significant reserves and soldiers in good spirits and could fight for much longer, but it just chose not to fight. With Soviet Union, Germans had several factors of advantage. Not only Stalin killed lots of valuable officers just a few years earlier and new ones were very poorly trained. The Soviet air force was again, obsolete, same as their tank forces that didn't have radio stations and couldn't communicate effectively on the battlefield. Soviet tanks would be poorly used, and attack without infantry support, which together with lack of radio cummunications, meant they were a very easy target for well trained and coordinated German forces. Even when T-34 and KV tanks turned up, the same problems would apply, and Soviets would lose them by sending them alone. The Germans would also train in the USSR before the war, and had good relations with the locals. This, together with propaganda that spoke of fighting for communism, the party and world revolution resulted in very low morale in the Red Army. With some exceptions of fierce and frantic resistance, Soviet soldiers didn't understand what they were fighting for, and in some regions, such as Ukraine or Latvia, Germans were seen as saviors. This attitude changed once Germans started committing war crimes, and Soviet communists changed their war propaganda. Instead of fighting for communism, revolution and the party, people would be told to fight for motherland. Stalin even stopped persecution of the Orthodox church and asked for aid in building up morale. German tactics, training and discipline was only one of many elements, because in each succesful campaign they would fight an enemy that had huge problems.

@@SparrowNoblePoland ahh just shut up germans were outnumbered by the french and british plus german tanks could not go to fight with a french or soviet tank head on.... german army had many problems too but they overall were the better army untill 1944-1945

@@kuqezi8378 They had completely lost before 43 started, some would say 42.

@@kuqezi8378 Things I mentioned, are described in detailed history books on the matter, and your argument is 'shut up, German tanks couldn't fight with other tanks'. LOL First of all it's not true. Even against T-34, German analysis from the time showed that Pz.III would win an encounter. That is because T-34s didn't have radio stations, the commander was overloaded and practically blind when inside the tank. Plus, Soviets had no idea how to use them, and they did not operate in larger groups before 1942. Earlier Soviets relied mainly on T-26 tanks, and to some extent BT series which German tanks could take on on equal terms or with ease. In terms of fighting with Polish or British tanks, German tanks were comparable or superior. Only the French were a threat, but Germans avoided fighting them with tanks, and they posed a threat mainly to infantry and artillery. But the more important thing you do not understand and what statistics clearly show, is that during WWII tanks rarely fought each other. Usually tanks were fighting infantry and artillery. In American doctrine a tank wasn't even an anti-tank weapon. Tank destroyer was. Wehrmacht also had separate units of tank destroyers, which consisted mainly of infantry armed with anti-tank weapons such as A/T guns, and it was the tank destroyers infantry that had most trouble with French tanks and rare encounters with T-34s and KVs, because their main weapon was 37mm A/T gun, and heavier A/T guns were a rarity. The only reason why a tank fight became a thing, was that Soviets had virtually unlimited numbers of tanks and armored vehicles they could easily replace, so on the East front a risk that a tank would fight another tank was considerably larger than anywhere else. Which is why Germans accelerated work on Tiger, and thought of Panther tanks and used them in the role of tank destroyers. But before Soviets mass-produced considerable amounts of T-34s and KVs tank vs. tank fights were a rarity, and remained a rarity in the West till the end of the war. Most of the time tanks were fighting versus infantry and it's true even for the East Front, where most Soviet tanks were destroyed by anti-tank artillery.

What is the exact event you mention?

@@vittoriuz---It's the Russian version of Dunkirk. It's where the Russian Navy and a bunch of soldiers n civilians evacuated from this port called Tallinn in 1941 when Operation Barbarossa was in full swing.

Not really More like the fact that the nazis were the only ones prepared for the war. Once the soviets got their shit together the nazis got their ass kicked

@@sapiensiski got their shit together is more like until they got support from other allies. To defeat many times smaller country lol that was already fighting 5 other countries lol

@@deangregoric4735 you know its the soviets who won kursk and stalingrad and turned the tide of the eastern front... right? also the soviets could have easily defeated the nazis, it would have just taken more time Just face it, your beloved nazis werent so good at war

@@sapiensiski You got it wrong. The reason why the Germans struggeled with Russia was because of the climate. It was very cold and they needed to build railways and shit to advance. They were using up alot of their resourcers. Same mistake with Napoleon. Plus the 2 side war really lost the germans morale. If Germany didnt go to war against Soviet. Then if the Soviet attack alone they wouldnt win

@@sapiensiski kursk and Stalingrad wore already when allies wore helping soviets we Will not talk what would have happened if not for allies because it's only speculation but if we look at numbers we can see that even with aid soviets could barely hold positions not to mention that at that time Germans wore deprived of resources and winter pretty much crippled them so basically we are looking at country with far less men fighting 5 countries making some terrible decisions and still managed to almost beat much bigger country with more than few times bigger army that cried allies for help And here you are telling naziz weren't that strong? How can you think that someone can take you seriously?

We plan to cover Skanderbeg this year

@@Knowledgia Thank you for making a video on Skanderbeg