I think your opinion on Erwin Rommel not being a military genius is a little unfair. He was very effective during the battle of Arras, and no mention was made of his World War I exploits which also elevated him as a strategist. His book Infantry Attacks was fantastic and is still involved in core curriculum at many military institutes including West Point. Let’s also not forget Kasserine Pass, and the reality that he was able to organize the entire Axis campaign in North Africa while being terribly under equipped and supplied as well as being forced to utilize second rate Italien divisions in the process. He was also the German general who predicted that Normandy could be a potential target for D-Day while Rundstedt wanted to focus the entire defense at Calais. If it haven’t been for Rommel D-Day would surely have gone a lot smoother for the Allies if he hadn’t been involved. Should he be elevated to the level of Helmut von Moltke or Frederick the Great? Maybe not, but an effective intelligent commander? Most definitely.

@eddgrs9193

5 жыл бұрын

Rommel's desert war tactics are being taught at West Point even today, his tactics were used by the US Military during the Gulf War.

@BurnCorpoStuff

5 жыл бұрын

Rommel was also the tank commander who basically singlehandedly captured Belgium, by defeating French and British garrisons.

@poper3232

5 жыл бұрын

How was he in any way under equipped,he was armed with state of the art tiger tanks and more than 8 thousand planes and that was even after the battle of britain so at that time planes werent scraps on a plate,the reason why someone could claim that he was under eq is because of his managing of his supply lines,as the video says he was a terrible manager of supply lines because of his organisation the units he had couldnt even reach the front in time thats how he lost el-alemain and he almost got encrcled by the french for crying out loud,and the whole idea of the atlantic wall was stupid at best they could have used the resorces to build more eq they soo much needed but they instead built a wall on a coastline .His whole millitary carier was a faliure past 1940 and whats that about almost single handedly capturing belgium? The guy got stuck for 40 days trying to capture a garrison of 20 men.And then poeple try to claim that he was one of the greatest generals in history he wouldnt be able to even clean the boots to mainstain and model in that regard.

@tonym3480

5 жыл бұрын

Thanks Cause I was a little annoyed when he was trash talking rommel

@thunberbolttwo3953

5 жыл бұрын

Poper323 the Tiger tanks didn't come to North Africa until the combat was in tunesia.Which by then the outcome was a forgone conclusion.Rommel was long gone by then.

The Axis powers didn't conquer Libya in 1941. It was already an Italian colony. Rommel had to defend it from the British invasion, and ultimately failed.

@mikecarone7320

5 жыл бұрын

There rewriting history

@andrewdavison7700

4 жыл бұрын

The Brits had already pushed into Libya that's why Rommel was asked in with the Afrika Korp. The Australians Famously held a port there for over 6 months.

@dkolle3446

4 жыл бұрын

@Micheal Koch well they tried but ultimately failed in both ;) hitler simply was not a great leader or well educated in military history or tactics and bc he thought otherwise interfered way to often and made way too many blunders. the wehrmacht wasn't that mighty mechanic maschine some want to make them look but they had great advantages in form of combat experience, training and some minor technical clues that had a big impact like a communication system within their tank groups but all of these advantages diminished over time.

@Morphious117

4 жыл бұрын

@Micheal Koch they only tried to make peace because they knew Britain had navel superiority and operation sea lion was a failure as georings airforce failed to win the battle of the sky over Britain

@fiacradoyle7474

4 жыл бұрын

He was a great general...... The minute that came up I felt like cursing..

I don’t know how great it was, but it was strong enough to take on quite a lot of armies at one time.

@timtheskeptic1147

3 жыл бұрын

Not successfully.

@alaric_

3 жыл бұрын

@@timtheskeptic1147 Depends on the timeline. If we talk about weeks and months, not years, german army could defeat most armies. This changed towards the end but no one can deny that in the beginning, there were none as strong.

"What is history but a fable that is agreed upon?" - Napoleon Bonaparte

@meganferraro8145

4 жыл бұрын

Waterloo..enough said.

@wasacrazy8

3 жыл бұрын

@@meganferraro8145 takes over nearly the entirety of Europe creating an empire that hadn't been seen since the Romans. Enough said.

@nomine4027

3 жыл бұрын

Yep, history is written by the winners.

@My_Alchemical_Romance

3 жыл бұрын

Allan Doughty “History is but a pack of lies agreed upon.” -Napoleon Bonaparte (memoirs)

@harveypollitt4088

3 жыл бұрын

@@wasacrazy8 British Empire takes over 2/3rd of the world the likes of which the World hasn’t or will ever see again! Enough Said!

A bit off topic, but you did mention something about Napoleon so I will contribute - The winter of 1812 in Russia was remarkably mild (check almanac). The French army left Moscow on October 19th. The first frost began on October 30th. The temperature didn't drop to -7C/19F until November 12th, and this was only briefly. This was followed by a thaw in late November. The famous crossing of the Beresina on November 26th was actually very dangerous because the ice had melted and trapped French soldiers who were forced to make bridges across. Temperatures didn't reach -18C/-1F until December 4th. The army was in fact ruined long before the winter. Of the 655,000 men who marched in, there were only 100,000 by the withdrawal from Moscow. By November 12th only 41,000 men were fit for fighting. It wasn't the cold that was killing them. For the most part it was disease. Certainly the cold may have weakened them, but it was hardly cold enough to have killed them. The colonial rebels under Washington suffered more severe weather with fewer supplies and with fewer weather casualties relatively. It should be remembered that tens of thousands of casualties were due to heat exhaustion and sunstroke. The summer of 1812 had been especially hot. Though heat, cold, and mostly disease lead to the defeat of the army, it was ultimately the lack of supply. An army of that size passing through hostile territory in already poor condition was doomed without sufficient food and supplies. He would have done better to remain in Moscow through the entire winter and continue the campaign in the spring. Some of Moscow had been burned, but the Russian army had withdrawn and there were enough supplies for the approximately 100,000 French soldiers. Unfortunately for them, Napoleon chose to leave chiefly due to impatience and his concerns with politics at home.

@TheSuperhoden

5 жыл бұрын

Thank you, saved me some time typing

@idk1848

5 жыл бұрын

The winter didnt hurt Napoleon ANYWHERE near it did to Hitler

@idk1848

5 жыл бұрын

@@nusquamesse1248 Hitler was in his base in Poland during most of the war after Barbarossa and before the Soviets pushed the Germans back. I meant Hitler and Napoleon as symbols for the French and Germans respectively and the different impacts the winter had in both armies in their Russian/Soviet campaigns.

@nusquamesse1248

5 жыл бұрын

@@idk1848 I see. Modern history not being my speciality, I was unaware of his exact location during the campaign. Thank you for clarifying.

@overbeb

4 жыл бұрын

​@@nusquamesse1248 His base of operations in Poland was known as the Wolf's Lair. It's the same place where the famous attempted Operation Valkyrie to assassinate him happened.

A elderly friend (American from Utah) and postal coworker of my father was in Normandy in an American tank unit during WW2. He once told my dad that after had been shot out his tank for the third time he wasn't getting back in another one! One was from a PAK-40 75mm antitank gun and another was an 88 round that went through the front armor, severed the arm of one of the tank crewman and went out the back armor. Real story from a WW2 veteran! .... Capt. Combat Engineer, U.S. Army.

Top Tenz: Germany's military wasn't that great. France: *looks away nervously*

He also wrote a book called "The Tank In Battle" which Patton read and applied it's principles to his own tank army

@CryptusLegionBW

3 жыл бұрын

Rumel you beautiful basterd I read your book!

@PlagueRiddenBlightSpawn

3 жыл бұрын

That happened in the movie ‘Patton’. Rommels book on tanks was never finished so it would have been impossible for Patton to read it

@thehistorian3132

3 жыл бұрын

The book was never finished

@jamesiwataki3778

3 жыл бұрын

@@CryptusLegionBW qq

@s-z515

3 жыл бұрын

He actually did finish a book on Infantry tactics and mostly finished his tank attack book but never completed it. So Patton could have read his book

A true grasp of how a person is judged, is how the enemy saw the person. Even today, US tank forces use Rommels book as required reading. The small unit tank tactics used in both Iraqi Wars by the US tanks were based on Rommels tactics.

@jhflathcosta

4 жыл бұрын

Achtung - Panzer! (English: "Attention, Tank!" or, more idiomatically, "Beware the Tank!") by Heinz Guderian is a book on the application of motorized warfare. First published in 1937, it expounds a new kind of warfare: the concentrated use of tanks, with infantry and air force in close support, later known as Blitzkrieg tactics. The book also argues against the continued use of cavalry given the proven effectiveness of the machine gun, and advocates replacing the cavalry with mechanised infantry. It was never properly studied by the French or the English general staff, both of whom helped introduced the tank.[1] The first half of the book focuses on the advent of positional or 'trench warfare' in World War I, and the subsequent development of the first tanks. Here Guderian outlines the development of tanks and tank tactics throughout the Great War and during the interwar period. Later he discusses the effects of the Treaty of Versailles upon the German armed forces before detailing the recovery from the setbacks the Treaty caused in terms of development of mechanised forces. Guderian concludes by promoting the further development of the German tank force and providing suggestions concerning the future application of tanks and their relationship with other arms.

@DocTommy1972

3 жыл бұрын

Rommel's book should have been titled how to lose two world wars. If your overarching ideology states that you are not not only going to conquer your enemies but exterminate them, they would never surrender. They would attack you with their bare hands. If you have to use bullets to kill pow it means fewer bullets for combat. The same with starving them to death. Troops must guard them. Rommel was out-generalled by Monty in the desert because war isn't just about fighting. You have to look after all your resources and run if you don't have them. The axis lost 250000 troops captured in North Africa. The invasion of Italy was the turning point. Germany had to maintain troops in Italy to prevent the allies rushing up. These weren't large numbers by any means but they still had to be supplied. Fewer supplies east. The ultimately failed attempt to keep Rommel in supply also diverted supplies from the east. Probably got my timeline mixed up here I think Italy was later than Tunisia

@marekstanek112

3 жыл бұрын

I'm afraid you're mistaking Erwin Rommel for Heinz Guderian.

@calska140

3 жыл бұрын

Is step 1 in the Rommel strategy guide "get torqued up on meth (pervitin)"?

@markgranger9150

3 жыл бұрын

The creator of blitzkrieg is Hans Guderian not rommel

The superiority of German tanks at the beginning of the War was due to their use of radios -- which most other tanks lacked -- to coordinate their movements. Every German tank had at least one FM radio, and commander's tanks had three. Only an allied commander's tank had a radio. It was only to to be used to talk to headquarters, while commanders were expected to use signal flags to direct the other tanks. Throat-microphones and earphones allowed German crews to communicate over the noise of battle, while Allied crews were isolated within their machines. Unlike the T-26's, Matilda 2's, and Char 2-B's, much German armor was riveted together instead of welded, and barely proof against anti-tank bullets. Most of their main guns were no larger than the latest British or French models. In fact, over a third of their front-line 'tanks' in 1939 were still Panzer 2's, which had only 20 mm main guns. But those radios allowed them to work together and run rings around the blind and clumsy maneuvers of otherwise superior Allied tanks.

@SusCalvin

5 жыл бұрын

Radios are pretty nice, compared to the alternative where they use flags or dudes popping up to shout and wave. France tries a two-crew tank for a while, where the commander doubles as gunner etc. The build of a french tank itself and the amount of them is comparable. British tanks later used a radio system with multiple channels. One for the internal crew, one for squadron communication and possibly one for communicating with other squadrons.

@helloweener2007

3 жыл бұрын

And you could listen to the radio. An elderly neighbour told us that his father stopped his tank because the radio was playing "Lily Marleen". They were 200 km away from Moscow or Stalingrad, I forgot which from both it was. So the radio was not only used for communication.

@dirkmolen9392

Жыл бұрын

It's a fact that antisemitism is a big part of Islam. As Arabs are usually Islamic, it's not weird at all to think that antisemitism was a reason for them to join Hitler. On a sidenote, there are a LOT of inaccuracies in this video...

Rommel was the only German general to have a museum dedicated to him. That's something.

@re1010

4 жыл бұрын

So what?

@scooterbob4432

3 жыл бұрын

A real professional German soldier. Much respected by the allies.

@princeofcats6883

3 жыл бұрын

That reminds me of Rat Race. Wanna go to the Barbi Museum!? Lol

@fightmaker619

3 жыл бұрын

Not really

@T.GLongstaff

3 жыл бұрын

@@princeofcats6883 nobody saw rat race that movie was garbage.

The Bismarck sinking quickly was not the only reason so many German sailors drowned. The Royal Navy ordered their ships to stop picking up survivors, apparently worried about U-boats in the area. so many Germans were left in the water

@speedercat154

3 жыл бұрын

It was also scuttled by the crew

The Allies did not rely on air power to destroy German tanks, this is itself a myth. Aircraft were remarkably ineffective at killing tanks. The majority of tank kills were made by AT field guns.

@freetolook3727

5 жыл бұрын

...and artillery.

@Schaneification

5 жыл бұрын

Air power stop the tanks not only KILLING TANKS but by blowing up the Bridges , Trains , Fuel and Spotting build up of Armor . The Germans lost Air Power the lost the ability to stop any of these things .

@stevetreloar6602

5 жыл бұрын

ToughAncientSpark, how are anti tank field guns any different from artillery given that both are defined as large calibre weapons used in war? Don't be offended, just asking that's all.

@thimoderks6416

5 жыл бұрын

@@stevetreloar6602 AT is direct fire unit mostly using armour piercing ammunition while artillery uses things like explosives ro fight infantry and normal vehicles. Note that I am not a militairy specialist.

@stevetreloar6602

5 жыл бұрын

Thimo Derks, Thanks for the info.

The stories of German tank design being superior to Allied tank designs are overstated from what I've read. The Tiger I, though "tigerphobia" was real, was rarely encountered by most allied soldiers, especially on the western front. The Tiger, Elefant, and Panther were all tough, yet mechanically unreliable due to their complex design and machinery. Most Tiger, Elefant, and Panther losses were to mechanical failure, not loss to enemy action.

@JRobbySh

5 жыл бұрын

German auto engineers have a love of complexity. While in Germany I deliberated between a Dodge Dart Swinger and a Mercedes 230, which sold for the same price. I chose the Dodge because maintenance costs were so much lower.

@jean-louispech4921

5 жыл бұрын

Same problem with french tank B1, with running out of fuel in the battle ( logistic problem ). French had to sabotage their stalled tank ... But no German tank could face a full operational B1 in 1940. Even the medium tank Su-34 was better than German tanks.

@harleymccartney7339

Жыл бұрын

Your statement is true, but what you and the video dont mention is that after the first tigers went to the east and were field tested (albeit during actual combat) they were heavily modified to correct the worst of the mechanical issues. Of courst too little too late, but toward the end of the war the Panzer 6 was just as reliable as any other tank in the field, and of course more powerful.

This entry is highly flawed. The Russians never came close to achieving a parity of losses with the Germans. Russian military deaths were at least eleven million and possibly as high as fourteen million, against two million Germans killed on the Eastern front.

@christopherdixon7270

3 жыл бұрын

And we will never know how many of his own soldiers died! From his own policies, etc.

@jaysalisbury193

3 жыл бұрын

Thank you for the information!

@timobrienwells

3 жыл бұрын

That is correct.

@Horible4

3 жыл бұрын

Why are you watching this anyways? At some point most youtube channels like these get paid to read from a script and make money based on the content requested from them. The bigger you are, the more offers you get, the more offers you get, the harder it is to ignore. Narrator is a shill.

@seansoraghan3245

3 жыл бұрын

Most were civilians

When I was young, my dad always said that the bombing of Dresden was a dark day for the RAF. My grandfather served in the RAF helping to maintain the planes, and it seemed that even during the war, even those serving in the RAF, felt that it was wrong. In light of that, I am not surprised that to this day it is seen as a war crime.

@TheRoadhammer379

4 жыл бұрын

It is a war crime, it's well documented and numerous Allied pilots have made the trip to Germany to apologize for the bombings

@mr.toffee1931

4 жыл бұрын

My grandfather took part in the bombing of Dresden, he said that he didn’t agree with it and the only reason they did is to help the Soviet Red Army push further into Germany

@Erin-Thor

4 жыл бұрын

Or when Germany bombed cities, they felt turnabout was fair play. War is not fair.

@BigHeadTodd3

3 жыл бұрын

while a lot of these points made are significant, the fact that after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the citizens were still of Socialist / well reserved personal public appearance; even 50 years after the fire bombings, street vendors would sell postcards of the dead bodies stacked like cord wood, the buildings still showing the aftermath of the destruction and scorch marks . . .

@gusjackson3658

3 жыл бұрын

Events had become all about bitter revenge by both sides at that point.

Listen to the channel that is known to be inaccurate for misconceptions on one of the most debates periods in history.

I just want to pick on two issues: Tanks. You're right about German reliability, but don't really follow up on the 5-1 ratio point. The standard Sherman's gun struggled to penetrate the armour of newer Panzers, necessitating having to flank them as a part of group to attack their weaker armour (Only the Firefly was capable of more even fighting due to its anti-tank gun). Dresden. Much of the controversy surrounding the bombing of Dresden stems from the fact that it was firebombed. So although there were targets of some strategic value attacked, the ensuing firestorm that engulfed the city is why it is viewed in a negative fashion.

@seanshultze220

5 жыл бұрын

And thte event in Dresden was suppose to be the Holocaust,get it? the meaning of the term? but no,it was a mass scale of massacre of ppl because of something "racial" that ppl proclaim

@mikehunt4797

5 жыл бұрын

Go watch the documentary Hellstorm.

@PriVateJoe7

5 жыл бұрын

The 5-1 ratio and the nickname "ronsons/tommy cookers" are myths. American tank platoons were almost always made out of five tanks, the 5-1 ratio is a misinterpretation of the fact that you almost always see at least 5 shermans engaging german tanks bc the shermans were simply never sent off in units smaller than 5

@xinsruby6777

5 жыл бұрын

wasn’t the 5-1 ratio because sherman squads existed out of 5 tanks

@idk1848

5 жыл бұрын

The allies firebombed and carpet bombed cities across Germany and Japan. German tanks as in tiger and panzer above the 4th model where next to invincible compared to Sherman's and T34s. It's only when fireflys were added next to air support that the allies could effectively take out advanced german tanks

The Wehrmacht conquered half of Europe, held out for years against 3 of the super powers of its time only to be called "meh" by a Brit 80 years later.

Sweet, Vonnegut's writing/POW experiences were the first thing that came to mind when you revealed the misconceptions about Dresden at no. #1

A video on KZread puts the blame for the sinking of the Hood on a rush to keep powder available for the guns by moving a large supply from the magazine to just below the guns....the Hood depended on maximum fire to sink the enemy while the Germans depended on accurate fire. A German hit resulted in a fireball finding the powder that was stored out of place on the Hood. A tremendous explosion actually sent one of the big gun turrets skyward.

Interesting bit about Dresden. Some of the bombs were time delayed in order to go off as much as 30 minutes later when firefighters and rescuers would be out on the street. Furthermore the first wave knocked out the power so that when the second wave came in, people out in the streets had no idea because the air raid sirens were out of commission.

@peterroberts2737

3 жыл бұрын

It's amazing how the Americans seem to have removed themselves from the bombing of Dresden, also the greatest number of civilian deaths in a bombing raid was in Tokyo.

@johnscanlon9403

3 жыл бұрын

@@peterroberts2737 Any Americans who know the history and are honest would not try to remove themselves from it. We know full well Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki. Nobody is innocent in total war. That is war.

@davidbennettracing538

3 жыл бұрын

They had it coming after what they did to London and Coventry...

@grenzer45

3 жыл бұрын

David Bennett the Brits started the bombing of civilians as a target. They fired bombed Hamburg in April, 1940. Coventry was bombed in retaliation in November, 1940. England (and America) had been planning strategic bombing on enemy cities since the mid 1930’s.

@markgranger9150

3 жыл бұрын

The Germans started the war. WWII was different than any other war. Wars were fought in the country not WWII IT was fought all over city country and it was a 24 hour affaire. More civilians were killed during the battle of Britain than military personnel

you literally took Soviet information about casulties. Come on that is so misleading. The Soviets would never admit the real number of dead soldiers. They wouldn't even admit to the Chernobil disaster after it was almost too late and that happened 40 years after the war.

@chrisprizzle278

3 жыл бұрын

Well what other numbers can you go off of?

@conversation2581

3 жыл бұрын

@@chrisprizzle278 you can go off of the information that even today population is still declining in ex soviet republics because of the war

I invite people to take five minutes to look at photographs of the aftermath of Dresden. The main railroad yard (east), autobahn (east), factory (north) and infantry barracks (north) were completed untouched, four factories/gasworks were only partially damaged, and none of the bridges were knocked out. Meanwhile, almost all of the bombing concentrated on the populated city center. Either somebody failed to inform Allied Command of the location of the military targets, or the objective was never to destroy the military targets to begin with. For being a video aimed at dismantling propaganda, the notion by Allied leaders like Sir Arthur Harris that Dresden was a military target is absolutely not supported by the evidence.

@ElohimJim

3 жыл бұрын

I think Dresden was just a revenge bombing for the Blitz, just because they could.

@helloweener2007

3 жыл бұрын

@@ElohimJim It was more a burned ground strategy. It was foreseeable that the USA, France and the UK would not get along with the Soviet Union because of the different poltical systems. The cold war has not started but there were already tensions between the US and the SU. Quote from Churchill when Germany attacked the SU. "If Hitler invaded Hell, I would make at least a favourable reference of the Devil in the House of Commons." The pact with the SU was only there because of the shared enemy. Beating Germany and leave more ruins for the SU was a win-win situation for Churchill.

Of course the wehrmacht only conquered Europe defeated the French, polish, Greek, English, chechs, Balkans and got till Moscow by sheer luck

@eldorados_lost_searcher

5 жыл бұрын

Not what he said, but okay.

@motleyzadot6867

5 жыл бұрын

that was sarcasm don't know if you noticed

@MeMe-fz8yt

5 жыл бұрын

You forgot Norway, Belgium, The Netherlands, Italy twice because they are turncoats.... And a few more..... Yeah this guy is nothing but misinformation.

@klayn5611

5 жыл бұрын

Oh yes, the powerfull world war 2 greeks, how badass of then. And the english? When?

@keelyleilani1326

5 жыл бұрын

They never got to Moscow. Maybe a few miles away, but not in the actual city by any means.

Today we use rommels tank tactics, and our infantry tactics at the squad level is organized from german infantry, which the SAW is central and rifle teams orbit. Hmmm

@alecblunden8615

5 жыл бұрын

And,as I understand it, Rommel's tank tactics were based on the theoretical work of Liddel-Hart, whereas the infantry tactics of the Heer basically reduced the tactical units to support units for the GPMG - which is far from modern infantry tactics.

@coreysmith8846

5 жыл бұрын

I've worked in an armored marine unit. German strategies are only briefly reviewed. Vietnam, Korea and especially gulf war are the American wars mainly reviewed. Mostly we go over confidential tactics from other countries using our equipment. Food for thought.

@paulwolf2775

5 жыл бұрын

One of the reasons why the M-60 machine gun was adopted, was due to German infantry tactics during World War Two.

@philipprebs6775

5 жыл бұрын

@@coreysmith8846 The Wehrmacht tactics might have already been adapted in the wars after ww2 ?

@abdurrasheed1652

5 жыл бұрын

Also stolen German technologies and patient designs, kidnapped German sceintist to make new missiles, air crafts, tanks,guns and many other modern weapons.

Has there ever been a war that was, according to history, won by the wrong side?

@uspalcatraz4355

2 жыл бұрын

The USSR in WWII. The Western Allies should have destroyed the Soviet Union and saved the world from decades of communism in Eastern Europe.

@panconartist

2 жыл бұрын

@@uspalcatraz4355 so there was also a war between the alies and USSR and the Nazis and USSR and the alies vs the Nazis I think WWII should be called: WWII and friends

When West Germany remilitarized in 1955, they decided that former regular army officers could be used but not former SS. Hence the artificial distinction between "clean" Wehrmacht and "dirty" SS.

@dixondiaz8448

2 жыл бұрын

Truth is, though, the regular army did plenty of dirty things.

@Ralphieboy

2 жыл бұрын

Of course. The distinction was entirely for political purposes.

On the intro, you said Wehrmacht, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine, that isn't as accurate as it should be. The term Wehrmacht more or less means armed forces and is often misused for just the army. It would be more accurate to say Heer, Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine or just the Wehrmacht. I know this is long winded, but it is a pet peeve of mine and try to clear it up when possible lol😁

@eldorados_lost_searcher

5 жыл бұрын

I'm there with you. A comparison would be to say the Department of Defense, Air Force, and the Navy. Pedantic, yes. But an important distinction in terms of command structure.

@elchinpirbabayev5757

5 жыл бұрын

Heer!! Dat's the word I was looking for!!!))

@sotabaka

5 жыл бұрын

that should be one of the top10 misconceptions ...

@Peterski

5 жыл бұрын

He actually says "Weermacht" - whatever that is ;-)

@goldwinger5434

5 жыл бұрын

Simon is just an actor who reads whatever script they hand him.

There is no evidence that during the war the British forces used the nickname 'ronson' for shermans, and is most likely to be a post-war nickname

@Jokerlokka

5 жыл бұрын

deborah curtis what about the German nickname? Which was Tommykocher?( Roughly translated Tommy-stove ) but to be honest a quick Google search didnt brought any real evidence on that Name aswell (atleast when i tried )

Here is one misconception some may have about the Nazis. The Nazis did not invent the concentration camp, it was the British during the Boar War (1899 to 1902).

@josephshields2922

5 жыл бұрын

also used in Cuba by Spain

@andybeans5790

5 жыл бұрын

The Americans were doing it to the Cherokee in the late 1830s

@CardinalBiggles01

5 жыл бұрын

The specific term may have been coined then but the concept of occupying territory and imprisoning troublesome locals and enslaving/killing them has been a common tactic throughout history.

@luisdavila1236

5 жыл бұрын

American Super Villain The term itself is familiar with that time,but they existed long before that,such as in the colonial Americas,with the same purpose,mostly.

@oriolesfan61

5 жыл бұрын

Nazis perfected the idea. Horrifying. Although Stalin killed many millions more

It is my understanding that Rommel, in the early battles in North Africa, had incredible intelligence of the placement and plans of the English Army. This intelligence eventually was lost, and Rommel had to fight without the plans of the English Army. Knowing what your enemy plans are, can make one look brilliant.

@alexmorgan4630

3 жыл бұрын

The source of that intel was an American attache in Cairo, who was given highest level access to the Brits' plans. He sent it by radio in detail, using the 'Black Code' to send it. The Germans had cracked the Black Code, and Rommel was given the Brits' plans and arrangements on a silver platter. MI6 figured out the source of the leak and plugged it. From that point on, the Desert Fox wasn't so foxy

The German Tigers had very strong front armor, so strong that the Shermans couldn't penetrate it with one shot unless they got very lucky. In a head to head battle the Sherman was the inferior tank and had to flank the Germans to stand a chance. As you said though, whoever gets the drop on the other side usually wins tank battles

@blasekiller9733

5 жыл бұрын

Tiger 1 tanks and shermans have about the same armor. The sherman armor is angled thats why its almost the same thickness of the tiger. In normal combat rangea the shermans could penetrate the tiger frontally, the only reason the tiger was better in tank on tank engagements is becuase of the 8,8. On the bigger picture the tiger is worse becuase of the numbers and all the reliability issues

@SusCalvin

5 жыл бұрын

The Sherman is a tank from another doctrine, where the tank is a sort of infantry support weapon. The allies start to build tank hunters but experiment with how to spread them around. Should we spread them around existing units, or concentrate them as a reaction force.

@johnathanh2660

Жыл бұрын

The Sherman's had uprated guns (for the Brits the model was the Firefly) and more importantly uprated ammo. HESH and APDS (?) This could penetrate all armour on all AFVs throughout WW2. Sadly this was limited during D-Day and only become more widely available from August/Sept. The killer on the battlefield was the PAK40s (not the 88s). Similarly for the British, they had an excellent anti-tank gun - 75/76mm. In no respect was the Sherman an inferior tank. The 'confusion' comes by failing to compare appropriate marks. i.e. early Sherman's with Tigers. The standard Sherman compares favourably with the Pz IV. (This is the tank that Hitler *should* have been building in far, far greater numbers). The Sherman was continuously upgraded and it had a number of features which were superior to the Tigers and Panthers. These include superior radios and optics (gunner and commander), superior ammo, equal or better guns, superior crew comfort and superior maintenance/maintainability and even features like a rear telephone so that supporting infantry can speak to the tank commander and designate targets without opening a hatch and climbing on the tank. Doctrinal features aided the Germans specifically that they would fire on a disabled tank until it caught fire (so that it couldn't be repaired) and that they were very strong in the counter attack, allowing their damaged equipment to be recovered. They had a motto - sweat saves blood, so they would 'dig in' and prepare for both defence and counter attack. Lessons that would cost the enemy/us dearly. One final note, if memory serves, I think it was around the 16th July 1944 when the first US forces in Normandy engaged their first Tiger tanks. Tigers (and Panthers) were rare on the Western front. Tigers happen to look like Pz IVs.

Maybe the Russians treated their Prisoners in a humane manner when the allies where there but before it was the same for russians and germans and even after the war. Like here in Austria. If you lived in the American or UK Zone it was great but if you lived in the Russian Zone they just stopped trains took all males out of the trains and they were never seen again. And that was after the War.

@julemandenudengaver4580

5 жыл бұрын

Stasi in DDR where very feared for that.. taking people and some where never seen again

@alittleolder

5 жыл бұрын

@@julemandenudengaver4580 They were often brought directly into Russia. Although many Vanished in Eastern Germany too. I remember when they opened the gates.. I saw it live on TV.. Very weird how we then thought we'll have peace forever..

@NihonKitty

5 жыл бұрын

Russian POWs who were repatriated after the war didn’t do well either. About 6% were executed on arrival and 14% were sent to work camps. (See Tara Zahra’s articles on DP children) It’s part of the reason the IRO had a rule against forced repatriation when dealing with displaced people after the war.

@alittleolder

5 жыл бұрын

@@NihonKitty The returning POW's were treated terribly by the people those, but they were all under supervision from the KGB and like you said executed, sent to war camps but they they don't really had any chance of a normal life. And that was the thanks for fighting fighting until getting captured. And then they were asked who it is they did not fight till the end but got captured. Very bad.

@markhorton3994

5 жыл бұрын

alittleolder I knew people who were held as prisioners of war by both the Germans and the Russians. Both sides were brutal and barely fed their prisioners. Some survived by eating insects for protein.

Stalin told Hitler winter is coming

You’ve taken a lot of liberties with your “facts”. Rommel was instrumental in building the defences of the German Atlantic wall, without him Germany would have fallen a lot quicker. HMS Hood was sunk so quickly because the Bismarck landed a shell right on top of her magazine rather than the design flaws you suggested. Also the Bismarck and it’s sister ship the Turpitz where absolute behemoths, they took a great deal of effort and resources to sink. These are just a few of the mistakes you’ve made in this video.

@garypulliam3740

4 жыл бұрын

His analysis of Rommel is spot on. The Atlantic wall was a minor obstacle to the Allies but a huge waste of resources to the Reich.

@bhqld628

4 жыл бұрын

Also the fact that investigations have shown that the crew of the Bismarck scuttled the ship further, after being hit, so that they could claim it wasn't an Allied victory

@MrAli171

4 жыл бұрын

rayeasom HMS Hood didn’t have armoured deck and in action it was a known practice to keep cordite charges around the charge lifts causing a flash fie straight down to main magazine

@philipwarren7335

4 жыл бұрын

the main reason the HMS Hood was sunk so easily was because it was being used stupidly, it was a battle cruiser not a battle ship and had no business engaging a real battleship. British hubris sank the Hood, if not outright stupidity

@libertywolfyt985

4 жыл бұрын

@@bhqld628, yeah it is actually unknown whether the loss of the stern or the scuttled by her own crew actually sunk the ship. It was not because they denied the victory it is that it is proper procedure when abandoning ship.

Erwin Rommel is also known for his ww1 track record. You didn't mention this.

@alanmountain5804

5 жыл бұрын

You are so correct I thought if this straight away.

@re1010

4 жыл бұрын

Not really. When people gust about Rommel to me, it's mostly his actions in WW2, sometime they gloss over the fact he was even in ww1.

@andrewr2955

3 жыл бұрын

Also failed to mention that Rommel was in charge of the Western European defenses against an Allied invasion. Given how close the Germans came to repulsing D-Day (a more timely commitment of armored units could have won it for them), that was no small feat. As much as this video spouts about agendas at the beginning, the creators evidently have their own as well.

@pikestance4219

3 жыл бұрын

@@andrewr2955 It is my understanding that this was more of a PR stunt than any real oversight powers by Rommel. If you going to defend Rommel, you could argue that he receive little logistical support in North Africa. Perhaps he could have done more. I think Guderian was a more capable commander

@jamesmeppler6375

3 жыл бұрын

Known? Who knows this? Being known for something means its common knowledge...this isnt common knowledge. I say that AS a historian of european history, pre 1900s history

Love how he says the winter didn't hurt the germans as much as people thought.but then went on and told us how the winter hurt the german army as we thought. Love the way people can use double think now days.which this channel does se alot with its pro-leftist videos

@Paciat

5 жыл бұрын

And you think winter didnt hurt Russians? Look at the Winter war with the Finns. Look at the Rzhev meat grinder. The winter didnt help Soviets. Its not a pro-leftist video. Your just affected by Goebbels propaganda that german army cannot be defeated in the field. "People can use double think"? Too bad you never did. If you did you would ask yourself how did the winter affect the Soviet army. You would ask yourself if the divisions from Siberia had any special equipment for winter warfare, or were they standard Red army divisions.

@njlauren

3 жыл бұрын

Saying that the Winter is what really beat the Germans is what the problem is,not that it didn't affect things. Hitler threw 150 divisions at the Russians, and in his arrogance believed he could crush those 'animals' like he did Poland,figured he would win by fall. Thanks to Stalin being a moron and not listening what England and others were telling him, Russia was unprepared when they invaded. But still they held out long enough to regroup, winter certainly helped, and by spring 42 the Russians could fight. In the end Russia has huge amounts of manpower and armour and aircraft,and this ends up defeating the Germans. I always liked what one historian said, he said it boiled down to two idiots making decisions,Stalin and Hitler, and the winner was whoever was less stupid.

Isn't it uplifting to hear how a representative for the nation that started terror bombing, Lübeck 1939, talk about Dresden?

I did a 3000 word essay called “Clean Wehrmacht?” all about if the soldiers of the Third Reich were to shoulder the blame for what occurred during the war. Really interesting. I’d post the link but I’m writing this on my phone. Just thought it cool to share

@Lichcrafter

3 жыл бұрын

Cool! Could you summarize your conclusion?

@blueyedemon919

3 жыл бұрын

I’d love to read that.

While Dresden had legitimate military targets within it, the bombing was ordered to be indiscriminate to the purpose of terror for both the Germans, as well as a warning to the Soviets on 'what the British can do.' Churchill himself tried to distance himself from the decision for such bombing, even though it was originally his idea. The debate over whether the Dresden bombing was legitimate or a war crime is similar to that of the atomic bombings. Yes, there were legitimate military targets in Hiroshima and Nagasaki as well. But does that justify indiscriminate destruction of an entire city? It's largely victor's justice. When the loser was caught indiscriminately killing civilians we called it war crimes. And we should because that's what it is. But when the victor commits indiscriminate civilian slaughter? 'It saved lives by ending the war quicker!'

@jacksonjamieson4094

5 жыл бұрын

Would have more civilians been killed in operation downfall compared to the nuclear bombs??? Civilians will always die in war so how can we minimize that and that's what the nuclear bombings did however they killed civilians in the process if that makes sense.

@cseguin

5 жыл бұрын

I do believe the Allies used the term "morale bombing" or something like it . . . a tactic that attempts to reduce the morale of the enemy by committing atrocities against the people - which is essentially what was done in Japan as well . . . although - looking back - the bombing of Hiroshima was a necessary evil . . . we should be thankful that the Allies were the first to harness nuclear power - something that the Nazis were working on as well . . .

@chrisj6756

5 жыл бұрын

In the grand scheme of things, the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima paled in comparison to the damage already rendered upon Japan as a whole. WW2 wasn't a gentleman's game of polo. Be grateful that our leaders did what had to be done.

@baruchben-david4196

5 жыл бұрын

To my understanding, bombing civilians is a war crime. Of course, who's gonna prosecute the victors?

@Paciat

5 жыл бұрын

Look how Germans acted when they lost WWI, but civilians didnt saw any occupation, nor destruction of their land. They created the Jewish backstab theory to hide the fact that Germans were defeated in the field. Nazi ideology is hard to erase from peoples mind. But night bombings help.

PLEASE! The "W" in Wehrmacht is pronounced as is a "V" in English.

@elbertderf803

5 жыл бұрын

in germany not here

@arandomyoutubeuser_____8930

5 жыл бұрын

@@elbertderf803 If a name is German, the W should be pronounced as a V. It's the same reason we don't pronounce the "ll" in tortilla or quesadilla as an L. The same reason we don't pronounce Chopin as "chopping," (unless you're just trying to annoy a musician)

@elbertderf803

5 жыл бұрын

i stand corrected thanks.

@JimFortune

5 жыл бұрын

Rachel Franco Funny you should mention Chopin. He's a national hero in Poland, and if it was a Polish name it would be pronounced Hopeen with the H like the Ch in Chutzpah. I used to tease my wife about that every time she told me how crazy English spelling is. ;->

@JimFortune

5 жыл бұрын

KC Maybe in Dutch, but that's not what I hear from German speakers.

Never trust a historian on youtube, that's like asking an undertaker advice on life insurance.

@battlesevengames9479

3 жыл бұрын

@@thepersiannarration961 was about to say the same

@TheKing60210

3 жыл бұрын

@@thepersiannarration961 ehhh

@mkdzzxc

3 жыл бұрын

The r/historymemes experts criticizing everything on youtube (Despite the youtuber's Accuracy)

@cookingonthecheapcheap6921

3 жыл бұрын

No, If it's KZread I'll search for university lectures. Or reading is still doing the job when it comes to learning. Funny enough.

@carminelupertazzijr3512

3 жыл бұрын

So true, ive read alot about the world wars, and this video is flawed....

Nice one mate thank you for the cavalry segment

Misleading aspects of this video-- 1) It was a miracle Rommel got as far as he did. He was a genius 2) Russian casualties really were much worse than German--prisoners are still casualties and especially early in the war the Germans took MILLIONS 3) The Sherman was completely outclassed by Tigers and Panthers and everyone knew it 4) German war production reached a peak in 1944 and in both tanks and aircraft were about double production in 1942 5) Germans were vastly superior in understanding revolutionary concepts of combined arms and war of maneuver.

@Shachza

4 жыл бұрын

Rommel was excellent at getting himself out of tactical trouble. The issue is, those tactical troubles were often of his own making. Great general, sure, but he had some notable flaws.

@MrEiniweini

4 жыл бұрын

On point 5. Guderian says it best (even as arrogant as he was). The germans, even against their own military hierarchy pushed for tank battalions to bypass strong points and disrupt enemy co-ordination. The allies with their success of the Great War relied upon dispersing their most effective field weapon amongst their infantry, seeing it only as an infantry support unit. On point 3, the Sherman was a 1936 design I think, designed to be mass produced. By the time it saw service the experience on its faults had been learned by the combatants. It had too high a profile, was petrol driven, had too small a gun to defeat any post 1940 tank.

@richardstocks8210

4 жыл бұрын

The Germans lernt the use of combined arms from the Soviets and their deep battle concepts.

@b1ackm3ssiah

4 жыл бұрын

Rommel was so arrogant that he got himself into tactically horrible situations and somehow managed to survive - He was lucky, not a genius. Smart yes, but far from a genius. Unless your Stalin and killing those people yourselves. remember those were soviet prisons in the first place... What is better, Speed or armor? Nazi's believed speed and tactical advantage, turns out for tanks its armor... ARMS output peaked in 1944 - By that time they were also out of oil, so they could not afford to run many of the major production factories that produced actual goods for people inside the country - leading to the depression Germany faced at the end of the war...

I give you thumbs down, especially for the bombing of Dresden, which was rarely attacked, but some days before the end of the war the British discovered that some stores were making weapons? Really? If you have access to the archives, you will find the Churchill's order to "toast" Dresden and the refugees from Breslau, that found shelter in the city. The scientific fire storm in the city killed hundreds of thousands, many survivors were straffed after the bombings. The allies also killed hundreds of POWs, accommodated in Dresden. Something similar happened also in other German cities, as well as in the Japanese city of Kobe. These were notorious war crimes, like it or not.

@ptauagpt

5 жыл бұрын

War is hell. Atrocities in history will eventually be viewed has been done by all sides. Sure the Nazis did some bad stuff.......BUT THEY WERE NOT THE ONLY ONES!!!!!!!!!!!

I wouldn´t call "Der Stürmer" the main newspaper of the Third Reich. It was a newspaper specialized in antisemitic propaganda. I think you could rather call "Der Völkische Beobachter" the main newspaper of the Third Reich.

@Kirovets7011

3 жыл бұрын

I can ad to that some little more. "Der Stürmer" was the newspaper of the SS. And yes, indeed, the Völkischer Beobachter was the newspaper in all of Nazi Germany.

@selfdo

3 жыл бұрын

@@Kirovets7011 It was published by one Julius Streicher, who was considered very unlikeable by even most of his fellow Nazis, and that says a lot. Most of the Nazi hierarchy actually thought it silly and low-brow. FWIW, Streicher had been the Gauleiter of the province of Franconia but by war's end was more or less a discredited has-been. That he was even selected as one of the defendants for the International Military Tribunal was a bit surprising, even given the notoriety of "Der Strumer", and his fellow defendants at Nuremburg avoided him like the plague.

Contribution of Indian soldiers in we1andww2 was significant। From India 🇮🇳🕉️🕉️🙏👌👍🇮🇳

@richardkent

4 жыл бұрын

My grandfather fought alongside Indian soldiers in WW2 and their contribution is sadly overlooked.

@mamavswild

3 жыл бұрын

Indian soldiers fought well for both the British empire and the Wehrmacht...many Indians met on opposite sides of the Normandy invasion! (Yes, the Wehrmacht liked Indians)

Of course the cavalry deafted them, Winged Hussars cannot be defeated!

@caveymoley

5 жыл бұрын

;) Great comment. But here's what I would suggest; You as the general should always aim for enemies mounts, since once the hussar is on foot he is very easy to kill with blunt weapons. Line up your companions/mounted units behind the rear muskets (see below) and order them to "use ranged weapons only" and "fire at will". Secondly Place a 2 deep line of musket troops close behind a 3-4 deep block of spears in the forward most position. And a support line of muskets no less than 20 paces behind the first. (All troops must have blunt weapons as secondary.) Order spears to "hold position", and "use any weapon". Order all musket troops to "hold position" and "hold fire". -Enemy cav incoming... Order the forward muskets to "fire at will" right before the enemy Cav charge makes contact with the spears. Once the spears and front muskets are encircled by enemy cav, order the rear muskets to fire in a "left flank fire, "right flank fire, left flank fire, right rank fire" pattern in order to protect the forward musketeers flanks. Continue this until "enough" of the enemy are dead/dismounted and then order your spear troops to charge and to "use blunt weapons only". Order your Rear muskets to fire at will, and order front muskets to "hold fire" and "fall back 20 paces". Once they are in the rear formation order them to also "fire at will". Order companions/cavalry to "charge" and "use any weapon" in order to clean up the remaining enemy troops.

@steverossini

5 жыл бұрын

Wow, I'm impressed...over a week and no Sabaton reference.

@radrook4481

5 жыл бұрын

Reminds me of the idea that King Porus kept placing his infantry against Alexander's cavalry.

You should do a video on the Battle of the Five Kings, which despite sounding like something from Tolkien, actually finally decided the modern shape of England.

@teknomnk

5 жыл бұрын

Captain Anopheles I'm not gonna lie. I read this as the "Battle of the Five Armies" at first...

Rommel quite literally wrote the book on armored warfare. He is still a major topic at west point. He didn’t have nearly the resources of the allies. He said it himself when he saw the Americans wasting gas, idling jeeps and tanks without a care in the world that he had already lost. Meanwhile he was rationing gasoline since ww1. You can hate the Nazi’s but Rommel deserves the respect he receives. He was rewarded for his competence and bravery by being instructed to kill himself.

A few seconds in, you referred to “the Wehrmacht, the Luftwaffe and the Kriegsmarine”. The Wehrmacht is often mistakenly associated with the German army. The term Wehrmacht is analogous to “Armed Forces“, and was in fact the regular German armed forces, including the air and naval services, along with the army (“Heer’, pronounced “hair“, which is the same term used for the German army today). The SS was not a part of the Wehrmacht.

@TheOsfania

3 жыл бұрын

Danke sehr!

@DetectiveLopez.

3 жыл бұрын

Thought it was common knowledge that the SS was not part of the wehrmacht

Something you left out,American tank doctrine was tanks were for infantry support.Tank destroyers were for fighting tanks.

@Redd_Nebula

5 жыл бұрын

And American tank destroyers were outranged by the german tanks anyway

@kyle433

5 жыл бұрын

redback209 doesn’t matter if it’s outranged. What sane tank commander would tell his gunner to shoot at an enemy tank that is 2000+ meters away. He is most likely going to miss and give away his position. Most of tank engagements happened at relatively close range where both sides had the capability of penetrating the others armor

@blasekiller9733

5 жыл бұрын

Tank destroyers were for defense only, to prevent a breakthrough caused by german tanks. The american doctrine was made that the tanl destroyers were mobile so they could move quickly to these holes and support the troops.

@radrook4481

5 жыл бұрын

What has always seemed strange is how the USA decided that quantity was more important than quality in reference to tanks. They sure as hell didn't think that about aircraft and carriers.

Another video about German vs. Allied tank units posed a question that that video was unable to answer, and which might elaborate on the respective perception of tank quality. How many actual repair calls were given for any particular tank, and what manner of calls were they? The reason is, by the time of the Normandy invasion, the Allies weren't just sending tanks, they were sending a lot of extra tanks specifically for use as spare parts, so that theoretically any given tank's downtime could be minimized. Conversely, German armored units, at least later in the war, probably didn't have access to similar supplies, meaning that when something broke, it took more time to fix. Were the Allied tanks actually more reliable, or did they simply have more immediate replacement parts?

@thephilster6860

3 жыл бұрын

I can't answer your question, but I can add that, according to US historian Stephen Ambrose, for various reasons Americans were more mechanically inclined than Germans. So, when an American vehicle broke down nearly any American could fix it; when a Whermacht vehicle broke down the Germans usually had to wait for a repair unit. Now I can't back this up with solid evidence; all I know is that when anything breaks I'm rushing to the scene with my duck tape, twist ties, string and pliers, shoving everyone out of my path.

@johnathanh2660

Жыл бұрын

A bit of both. The Sherman's in particular were more *repairable*. Consider the final drive. This is the sprocket that actually connects the engine/transmission to the tracks. To repair this on a Panther the entire tank has to be emptied and the turret removed. For the Sherman it is unbolted from the front. This means field repairs are possible, Also, on the Tiger/Panther there were specific instructions NOT to use these tanks to tow broken down tanks, otherwise you'd have a pair of tanks with broken final drives. Finally, the New Deal. FDR's new deal push out tractors as part of this package, which meant every farm boy had experience of working with engines and mechanisms. Very useful if your army is the first mechanised army. The US was, unlike the German army. So, the Sherman in many ways can be considered to be the 'best' tank because of a number of 'soft' factors. The overall consistent quality of the product, but also the fact that the troops in the field could maintain it to a high degree.

A daring video, Simon.

From all the history I have read. If war breaks out, by the time the fighting is over, no side can truly say it was blameless, completely rightous, and justified in everything it did during the conflict. The Soviets conscripted civilians straight to the battlefield with little to no training basically making them into cannon fodder, the British busted dams with no regard as to how the destruction would affect the civilian population down stream, the US had internment camps where Japanese-Americans were held with little evidence except where they were from, the Japanese experimented with biological weapons on POWs, and the French sided with Nazi Germany in the form of the Vichy French in North Africa withholding nothing of the available force they had at the time. My point is war is terrible. None are blameless in war except singularly honor individuals. Thus, I must quote General Lee, "It is well that war is so terrible otherwise we should grow too fond of it."

dunno just look at a timelaps of the territory conquered by the Germans. their military cant be that bad if they managed to conquer nearly all of europe. but fighting a long strechted war against countries that get supply from the whole world just doesnt work the same reason they lost in WW1

@tomasvesely254

5 жыл бұрын

That suggest that they were incredibly bad. Because if they were smart (as in smarter than average rock), they would not have attacked everyone. Also what were their successes? Poland? With USSR from behind, never had a chance. Fair enough, West front was clear victory. Russia? After surprise attack, it was mostly downhill. There is no way Germany ever defeats USSR without aliens space bats. Africa? Got defeated. Britain? Never could have invaded. Their navy´s greatest achievement is sinking one battlecruiser by lucky shot. How would their at max 2 BB, 2 BC, pocket bb or two, few cruisers defeat RN?

@2chin4u

5 жыл бұрын

Germany would not have won a one on one war with any of the allied superpowers

@2chin4u

3 жыл бұрын

@Amber Hoke Yes France of the 1940s. Who were undisciplined and still delivered messages by motorbike. Seriously, the Germans did not have the oil, industrial capacity, or manpower to defeat any of the US, Soviet Union, or Great Britain. Let alone together.

"Misconceptions" is a bit of a misnomer. All of these things are true in a certain sense, but then things changed as the war went on.

@mamavswild

3 жыл бұрын

Correct; these are merely critiques not facts painted as misconceptions, the truth for all of these points lies somewhere in the middle.

Thank you for your service Simon

Lost me at calling the Shermans "Ronsons". Never happened in war time. The common myth is that it got that nickname because of a slogan from ronson of "lights the first time, every time". Which the company didn't use til the 50s.

@robertwhiteside7371

3 жыл бұрын

Capture The Russians didn't like the Sherman tanks because they could not move well in sand they said. A German private capture in a battle in North Africa told his American captors that America would not win the war because they made such lousy tanks. America won the war because of mass- production of weapons not necessarily quality.

@jamesschenken1636

3 жыл бұрын

The actual nickname for the Sherman was "Tommy Cooker" because of their tendency to burn easily in N0orth Africa.

@angeleyes2c

3 жыл бұрын

Actually that "lights every time" slogan was used in Europe in the interwar period.

@imperialmodelworks8473

3 жыл бұрын

@@angeleyes2c no it wasn't. This has been disproven time and time again.

@johncronin9540

3 жыл бұрын

@@jamesschenken1636 I’m no expert, but wasn’t this, in part, because Sherman’s used gasoline instead of diesel fuel?

Rommel had an edge in that the British strategies which was transmitted to American by cracked ciphers which assisted Rommel greatly in defeating the British until new ciphers were put in place. A fact little known.

@pweter351

4 жыл бұрын

Americans were not in North Africa until the end why would we send them messages?

@stevecarey2030

4 жыл бұрын

@@pweter351 He's actually right about that. It was an American observer, maybe even before the US was in the war. He transmitted messages back to the US about what was going on, but the Italians had stolen the US diplomatic code and shared it with the Germans. The Germans read all his messages. Ultra was able to figure it out and informed the Americans. They changed the code and Rommels secret info source ended. Well that and Rommels entire intelligence team was captured in a British raid at around the same time. Suddenly Rommel didn't have inside information anymore. He was less of a desert fox after that.

@pweter351

4 жыл бұрын

@@stevecarey2030 truth is stranger than fiction never knew any of that ✌

@mamavswild

3 жыл бұрын

The British cracked Enigma- a greater EDGE there has never been!!

Heinz Guderian was the best General of WWII, without any doubt.

@ceciljohnrhodes4987

5 жыл бұрын

I think Kesselring might give you an argument there, as Manstien possibly could.

@envfynestt9132

4 жыл бұрын

that's why they made him immortal by making his name a ketchup right?

@Sean2002FU

4 жыл бұрын

Lutz Von Hintermond ...you sir are absolutely correct !! He was a genius, and visionary!!!

@PotentialHistory

4 жыл бұрын

The fact that he was one of the big proponents of "Taking Moscow = Victory" should make everyone question his ability to understand things on the operational level. Hitler's order to secure Ukraine first and worry about Moscow later is a much more sound decision as the Germans had not achieved their victory by September and were possibly facing a protracted war. This isn't unique to him, many German commanders saw Moscow as the key when it simply wasn't with the Soviet Union's size, and the result was fighting a western European style war in the East that makes the task of destroying the USSR pretty much impossible. Tactically brilliant, operationally stunted, leaving him far from the best general.

Amazing thank you so very much

Love it great video

Stop saying "Panzers or Tigers." Panzer is the generic German word for tank. You probably mean "Panther" or "Tiger." The Panther was initially designated as "Panzerkampfwagen V Panther" and the Tiger was initially designated as "Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausführung H." You should know better.

@kurtcarlson4521

5 жыл бұрын

yeah!

@vesical7952

5 жыл бұрын

lets just spend 15 seconds saying a single word. The end result is the same man,.

@ScramasaxeRA

5 жыл бұрын

could be a reference to the Panzer III and Panzer IV

@mamavswild

3 жыл бұрын

And the German Bundeswehr continues to call their tanks Panzers!

Bismarck did not sink due to the torpedoes. When they examined the torpedo protection hull, they found it had done it's job and the main part of the hull itself did not flood. The back had broken off, but the ship was already sinking by that time due to the damage and the scuttle charges. Not saying that the ship didn't have problems, the one with the radar was a legitimate fault, but it was close to super battleship levels considering it withstood 1,000 chells before sinking. It was feared enough for Churchill himself to order it's destruction regardless of risk or loss. Not to mention it was likely the prototype design for the H-44.

The main reason that Army group Centre didn't reach Moscow was that in the late summer Hitler ordered the Panzers of Centre Group to reinforce Army Group South in their endeavor for an extended period until those goals were back in line. By the time he sent them back it was too late for a quick victory. If Hitler had left well enough alone, Moscow would have fallen and the southern front could probably cleared up at their leisure. Once again the "Great Strategist" interfered instead of allowing his Generals their head and snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

I do agree with the German tanks. Thought Germany defeated Poland, they tried to hide the number of tanks were destroyed. The Tiger itself was a beast against most tanks suffered from infantry support.

One could argue that ANYone or ANYthing of ANY of the belligerents wasn't perfect. The U.S. Navy was caught by surprise in 1941 at Pearl Harbor despite U.S. Admiral Harry Yarnell showing, during 1932 war games, that Pearl Harbor was vulnerable to attack from aircraft carriers. Churchill took troops from North Africa and sent them to Greece in 1941, frustrating an imminent British victory in North Africa and failing in Greece and Crete. Stalin personally directed the defense of the USSR during the opening of Operation Barbarossa -- with catastrophic consequences for the USSR. Japanese Admiral Yamamoto deliberately ignored the result of war games that showed that his plan to invade Midway island was vulnerable to an American ambush. The list of blunders by the belligerents can be continued indefinitely.

@none5526

5 жыл бұрын

MacArthur 'got caught with his pants down nine hours after Pearl l Harbor. Clark Field disaster.

@Theanimeisforme

5 жыл бұрын

Pearl Harbor was bait to get the US into the war, had the japanese not attacked, FDR would have been out of office due to achieving nothing and the western front would never form.

Well the tiger tank had me fooled lads

Yeah, so the Germans weren't what we thought huh? I'd bet the allies that fought against them at Dunkirk, Normandy, the Ardennes Forrest and the battle of the bulge and numerous other battles would all disagree. Including the Russians.

@davidjones-tz8bs

3 жыл бұрын

What country was prepared for war and was totally ready??? Which countries weren't prepared? when these countries, IE UK got prepared the fabled German machine was just a fallible as the rest.

Rommel didn't stop up voluntarily outside Dunkerque, he was held up by the 51st Highland Division at St Valery-en-caux while the English and French were evacuated. The 51st were promised they would be evacuated next, but weren't, and had to surrender after pretty much being left to chuck rocks at Panzers. Churchill has still never been forgiven in Scotland for it

I know a Lancaster tail gunner for the Canadian RAF that flew the Dresden mission. He says there was no military value whatsoever, that they used incendiary bombs to drop on civilians. Furthermore when their commanding officer finished with the missions briefing and came to tell them what their mission was he said, "Sorry boys you're not going to like this one, it's Dresden." That's right then men dropping the bombs didn't care much for killing innocent lives in a beautiful ancient city free of military targets. If it was later determined that there were in fact military targets in Dresden, they did not know it when they planned and carried out the mission. Their mission was clear to fire bomb the city to cause as much death and destruction as possible.

Every time I watch a TopTenz video, all I see is a bunch of theory, and assumption. lol

@yutaoGOATsu236

3 жыл бұрын

Well u can't say for certain that something happened because we wasn't there that's the best u can do

The Bismarck's most fatal stern flaw was the design of the rudders around the screws. The outdated Swordfish planes torpedo attack crippled the rudders into a constant port side turn, this gave the Royal Navy the advantage to attack. The Bismarck had no chance of making it to a German held French port and it was leaking massive amounts of oil. That and the Admiral and Captain on board made disastrous decisions.

@MatthewSmith-wv5fi

3 жыл бұрын

They torpedoed the ship, they bombed the ship with tall boys. The ship went down because it was a damaged ship. The only real mistake on the Germans part was that they were hepped up on goofballs and had no chance of staying focused after addiction set in and supplies of the drugs became scarce. The Bizmark limped along the coast and was spotted by just about everyone on the coast making it an easy target. It was hunted down from land, sea and air until it was finished. The Bizmark sank when it was christened in dry dock before launch.

add a series called "allied war crimes". you never hear of any

11:20 that's because in most places the Nazis were viewed as liberators from communist regimes. Being aware of and admiring the achievements of the Nazis makes someone about as much of a white supremacist as admiring Afghani insurgents AKA mujahideen for repelling not one but two Global super powers makes me an islamist. Edit: It was supposed to say insurgent knot and surgeon.

@ricardokaka2286

5 жыл бұрын

Anonymous Li nazis were only seen as liberators for like 2 days. you think ukrainians saw the nazis as liberators when the einsatzgruppen was unleashed on them.

@ricardokaka2286

5 жыл бұрын

Julius Caesar maybe they shame the latvians for liking war criminals. ever think about it like that.

@felixwirantha2831

5 жыл бұрын

Anonymous Li jnlnaafaaaa

@furripupau

5 жыл бұрын

What the hell are you talking about? "Most places"? What places? What places did the nazis liberate from communist regimes? What places did the nazis "liberate" in any sense of the word? Seizing control of a puppet state, and keeping it as a puppet state under "new management" isn't liberation. LMAO

@idk1848

5 жыл бұрын

@@furripupau when Ukraine was taken over its a well known fact that the people loved the Germans as the Soviets where brutal. That changed of course when the Nazis started massacring them

To task 5:Racially pure Wehrmacht. There were members of 33 different countries in german service. Also volunteers from Sweden (wich was neutral during the war). But most noticable was the service of more than 150.000 half-jews in the Wehrmacht. Even in time of antisemitic laws and concentration camps.

Thank you!

some interesting propositions thanks

Just because a guy has a British accent doesn’t automatically make him credible.

@witnessfox3509

5 жыл бұрын

What if he has two British?

@christophertoole6994

5 жыл бұрын

Are you mad? Lol you seem upset

@the_godfather9974

5 жыл бұрын

Yeah also really depends on wich British accent tho. I’m from Brum and that accent is not particularly known to sound very smart 😂😂

@robertmiller5585

5 жыл бұрын

You don't say.

@td1158

5 жыл бұрын

@@witnessfox3509 what does that mean lol. his accent is twice as British as it already is? orrrr?

I lost count of the different ways he pronounces 'Wehrmacht' after 10.

@MikeTXBC

3 жыл бұрын

Yeah, I couldn't believe how badly he butchered that word.

@sailorhms

3 жыл бұрын

I was scrolling down to see who also had the same annoyance as I had with this bio , in fact... now that I think of it, I've got quite a few actually!

This did make me think "yes, if a job cannot be communicated effectively when you're not there" it's not been managed or communicated effectively.

No the crew of the Bismarck died because the Royal Navy received reports of U Boats in the area. Even though there was no confirmation, they abandoned rescue operations after a brief attempt. Also, the Bismarcks crew scuttled the Beauty themselves, though the British attack certainly sped along its demise.

No the German crew scuttled the Bismarck.

I'm glad you tore down Rommel. That means the over-inflated and pompous Bernard Law Montgomery, who barely defeated Rommel's forces(which fought poorly when Rommel wasn't around, which he wasn't) is even worse than even modern historians now admit he was.

@williamreagan8662

5 жыл бұрын

I thought that was the most ironic thing. The brits are trying to tear down the only person who uplifts the reputation of their golden boy Monty to a status greater than that of a uniformed Troglodyte.

@i_notold8500

5 жыл бұрын

@@williamreagan8662 I wondered if anyone else picked that up. Rommel, to give him the credit he's due, was out of his depth as a Corp commander. He was exceptional at Division level, and smaller, but that skill didn't scale up. Another irony is that the French shat on their best commanders and were defeated where the British praised their worst commanders and were victorious.

Very interesting

Whenever I talk about the nazis at stalingrad I always mention the winter thing as a last note, never a primary idea

@markgrear

4 жыл бұрын

What place its is when there during world cup can still see loads of damage still to this day

@3John-Bishop

4 жыл бұрын

The germans should have started in march not june 30th

@3John-Bishop

4 жыл бұрын

They should have gone straight to moscow and razed it to the ground. It would have been a big psychological blow. Central power was concentrated there and would have been scattered to the wind.

Dude, I grew up talking to the elders of my community including my grandfather about ww2. They say the the Germans where hell. Every one said that if they had fuel for their planes and could have matched our air superiority that they never would have made it to the beach. The germans fought the world under equipped and with tenacity.

@speedercat154

3 жыл бұрын

Yah. Because of the treaty of Versailles they were only allowed to have a small army. So you best bet they trained those troops like hell. Those are the guys that wiped out france and poland in record time. At the start of the war they were well equipped but as it dragged on they started losing too many men and supplies which is what led to their defeat. German soldiers have always been called some of the best.

Few people know this, but the Polish would have easily won the war against Germany if they had enough horses, but because they did not have enough cavalry, they did not win. The allies considered using horses in the Normandy invasion, instead of tanks, but felt the horses would not be able to swim across the English Channel.

Rommels tactics are taught everywhere! Even Patton, and Eisinhower noted his prowess. Patton even developed his skills with help from Rommel's writings! And even said so! Remember mechanized Calvary/ artillery was still in it's infancy! I'm confused for the 1st time on your show.?????

@GM-tw4el

3 жыл бұрын

Did you listen to the start when he said the allies wanted to make their enemies sound more proficient to justify their own flaws?

@GM-tw4el

3 жыл бұрын

Make your own mind up. Don't trust KZread. Have a look at different sources of information and decide for yourself.

@lynnwood7205

3 жыл бұрын

Yes. The Brits did not achieve the upper hand until the their long range patrol force tracked down and destroyed the German signals intercept unit. That unit was relating almost real time radio traffic to Rommel giving him the advantage of knowing the British order and deployment for battle. This is not to say the British Empire and Allied forces did not fight well until then. Allied Logistics and maintenance capacity and signals intercept and code breaking came to be better.

@markgranger9150

3 жыл бұрын

It was Heinz Guderian who perfected the blitzkrieg. Rommel was a student.

The Bismarck had design flaws? Its rudder was stuck causing it to sail in circles and it took the entire British navy hours to sink it wtf dude...

@dizzyfergy

5 жыл бұрын

Crippled by an outdated seaplane and sunk by two heavy destroyers and two battle ships , hardly the entire Royal Navy

@suryaprakash2126

5 жыл бұрын

@@dizzyfergy You know that planes survived because they were outdated.

@henrydover-porter1008

5 жыл бұрын

Paul Fergy it was hit by a lucky torpedo in the Achilles area on all ships not just Bismarck and in the final battle it was out gunned by a factor of five so it didn’t have a great chance tbh

@heinzguderian3857

4 жыл бұрын

She was scuttled

@stevenweaver3386

3 жыл бұрын

To limit weight to allow it to use the Kiel Canal, the double hull to defend against torpedoes was not extended to the bow or stern. The design of the steering gear resulted in losing 62% of her forward speed when making a hard turn. Also having 3 shafts instead of 4 it was almost impossible to steer using only her engines and screws. The port shaft wasn't powerful enough to overcome the drag of the starboard and centreline screws, or the deflection of the rudders. The centreline screw could not counter the rudder deflection at all. Too, her armoured deck was placed lower in the hull, to save top weight and improve stability for gunnery. It did however leave all steam pipes, electrical and communication lines above the armoured deck, and unprotected. Within 15 minutes of the first RN salvoes she was effectively unmanageable and dead in the water.

This is one of the most inaccurate and hearsay lists this channel has ever made. Although some of it is true this list is like saying the Ford Pinto is the superior machine to the Ferrari because it’s cheaper.

@DevoGaming93

3 жыл бұрын

Which one is more likely to get you from Point A to B without failure?

@inkdreams5113

3 жыл бұрын

A test of durability will settle this.

@PRH123

3 жыл бұрын

The judgement of superior only has meaning if your first indicate the criteria of the judgement. If economy, cost, ease of production etc are the criteria then the Pinto is superior, if the criteria is speed, handling, attracting women, etc the the Ferrari is superior.

@alexbubenik7720

3 жыл бұрын

Absolutely true, some of the most inaccurate bs reported on WW2. In Guderians memoires for example he states, that in the invasion of Russia hundreds of russian horsemen with swords rode up against tanks literally being slaughtered by german mg fire and tanks.

@alperdue2704

3 жыл бұрын

Agreed.

A lot of the WW II armies use mounted or half-motorized units. Usually as pack animals or the described dragoon tactics. Infantry on top of horses is a bit more mobile than infantry walking, but dismounts to fight as infantry. A lot of the heer uses animals for logistical needs at the time. An all-motorized (trucks, cars etc) force would need more fuel and maintenance to run.

M4 Sherman’s were better known to the brits as Tommy Cookers. And believe it or not, it wasn’t the fuel that initially caused Shermans to brew up, it was improper ammo storage. Once “Wet Storage” was introduced, the rates of Sherman’s catching fire decreased significantly. And most German AFVs also used roughly the same 80 octane gas as the Sherman.

Make no mistake, Simon is a Brit.

@chadbennett7873

2 жыл бұрын

You mean the side that won?

So, apparently TopTenz is the ONLY outlet we plebes can trust for completely fair, unadulterated, truthful retrospective on all things past? I think not. Another video, once again, riddled with opinion and inaccuracy. Every single time I give this channel another chance, you blow it. Fool me once... I'm finished being fooled. Folks, look these items up on your own and see what you think. Make up your own minds. Don't take anything like this as fact until you've researched it yourself, even if you agree.

@motleyzadot6867

5 жыл бұрын

He is merely stating that this channel is riddled with inaccuracies and opinionated information. I personally agree.

@markfoster1520

5 жыл бұрын

Yes, but I never want him commenting again.....

@Colddirector

5 жыл бұрын

What exactly do you have a problem with? When people make vague statements like this, it's really difficult to tell between the people who actually have criticism and the partisan hacks baww'ing that their sacred cow has been besmirched.

@vincentlp115

5 жыл бұрын

Shoudn't it be pretty clear that you should do your own research instead off blindly trusting a youtube video?

the russian T-34 was a complete surprise to the germans. Simple design, reliable and very effective.......They also had no idea that the russians had 35000 of them.

I am fairly certain that the Sherman tank was not contemporaneously called a 'Ronson', except in its flamethrower format. The term really began to surge with GI's returning from the war. Post war, soldiers said these things, not during the war.

@cameronmacleod3333

5 жыл бұрын

I believe the Germans called the Tommy cookers

@slackerman9758

5 жыл бұрын

@@cameronmacleod3333 I seem to remember reading about this -- for improper ammunition storage. I believe later corrected by wet storage.