I feel like the audience didn't fully absorb the majority of the talk - from the questions, it seems like the Wehrmacht myths still were dominant in their minds.

A rather good Q & A section after the lecture. Usually these lectures end and there is no time for questions. The questions afterwards and answers provided are as good or better than the lecture itself.

@bigdark1666

Жыл бұрын

They all drank the cool aid

The Germans went into the USSR apparently expecting that its industrial capacity and population hadn't changed in 20 or so years. And then wondered why they failed.

@SuperPhunThyme9

4 жыл бұрын

They had been bogged down from a revolution and the after effects from it. Usually that's nothing to slouch at....

@SuperPhunThyme9

4 жыл бұрын

...I mean they were hurting from WW1 already, then went straight to civil war after that....

@evanhunt1863

4 жыл бұрын

@@SuperPhunThyme9 To be fair, they likely considered pre-WW1 to be their last reliable datapoint.

@DonMeaker

4 жыл бұрын

@@evanhunt1863 Guderian, and other Reichswehr officers trained in the Soviet Union, because Germany was not permitted to have tanks per the Versailles treaty. That would have given them some data, but doesn't seem to have been exploited.

@evanhunt1863

3 жыл бұрын

@@DonMeaker I was more referring to the SU's population numbers and industrial capacity. But you're right, that should've given them something.

It’s just so refreshing to listen to unemotional, critical, informed analysis. It’s so lacking almost everywhere else in our current culture and media.

@TheSword2212

11 ай бұрын

Lol

@daydays12

Ай бұрын

Academics from good Universities are often like this. The MSM often lets us down.

This is why only Britain survived the initial assault by geary against Europe. Britain alone, when Churchill was in the cabinet in armaments and later as first lord of the admiralty was wisely interested in building up logistics. Why did he insist on what many saw as wasting warships protecting convoys of spam and trucks? Because whatever else you have to say about churchills lack of strategic genius he was a tactical genius with few equals. Only The Office of The Quartermaster General was the only American army group that recognized what Churchill was up to in putting so many resources into munitions and buying outdated American destroyers. Even the British think to this day that the deal giving us icelands bases for old destroyers was a bad one. I disagree. He got an expensive mid Atlantic airbase off his hands and into the hands of an ally he knew would continue to use it to do sorties over the convoy route and what's more that ally could afford to improve the bases at a time when Britain Could not. His time as minister of munitions made Britain ready for a war that no other country was ready for. It took about a year for the US to surpass and become the driving force behind ww2s munitions. Churchill was alot smarter than he gets credit for though his big ideas tended to be to finite and not flexible enough.

@T1000315

2 ай бұрын

Yeah, I think Churchill's greatest quality is that unlike everyone else, he had a MOAT

@28pbtkh23

Ай бұрын

@@T1000315 - that’s true, Britain had a moat. But that would never have been enough if Britain didn’t have a great Navy to protect the moat nor an Air Force to protect the Navy and the skies.

@daydays12

Ай бұрын

interesting thank you

@daydays12

Ай бұрын

@@28pbtkh23 true - I am proud that both my father and mother were in the Royal Navy back then.

As a history buff this content from USAHEC is incredible. I'm more of a classical studies fan, and modern history is not my passion, but the videos here are so interesting and compelling. What an amazing wealth of knowledge is passed on by these lecturers. I am so glad this content is recorded and uploaded for all to see. This is the absolute BEST youtube has to offer.

Excellent lecture, well worth hearing. I have Dr Megargee's book and it was quite informative. One of the most interesting parts was a question asked at the end about whether he agreed with many who held that the hanging of Alfred Jodl at Nurembergwas no justified, because he was supposedly a "non-political" military expert. Dr Megargee points out that historians of the last couple of decades have come around to the realization that the Wehrmacht was up to its neck in responsibility for war crimes which the generals falsely denied after the war. Dr Megargee also pointed out that the German army during WW2 really believed that the army "had been stabbed in the back" in 1918 which motivated their desire for another round of warfare and their insane belief they could win a world war against the US, USSR and British Empire.

@JustMonikaOk

3 жыл бұрын

You hang the people that give the orders, not the people who followed them.

@JustMonikaOk

2 жыл бұрын

@UN KNOWN Spoken like someone whose never had to make that choice before. You can't possibly know what its like to be in that situation. Soldiers are not raised or trained to question orders, they're expected to follow them. It's not optional. You can, and will be killed for doing otherwise. Futher, you're also taught you're acting in the best interests of the state, to protect your children, your parents, your people. Acting against the state isn't just putting yourself at risk, it's undermining your nation and betraying your oath. But how easy it must be to condem every solider whose ever failed to question an order from your comfortable armchair.

@nostradamus548

2 жыл бұрын

@@JustMonikaOk you can say that again!

@itskarl7575

2 жыл бұрын

@@JustMonikaOk The reason we go after those who give the order rather than those who carry them out, is sheer pragmatism. One, the people at the top are easier to identify, and two, the people carrying out the orders are simply too numerous. While it is true that many who committed atrocities were pressured to do so, it is very difficult - if not impossible - to separate these from those who participated with glee. Of course, what we see happening in Germany today is that they are now going after anyone who simply served - because they are the only ones left. People whom the prosecutors of the Nuremberg trials weren't remotely interested in, and who weren't even in a position to commit atrocities, can now be prosecuted as accomplices to murder - because they played a part in the greater system which perpetrated genocide. These are accountants, radio operators, paramedics, front line soldiers recovering from injuries etc. People who were in their early 20s then and in their 90s now. _Now_ they can be prosecuted, because they aren't so numerous anymore. And there aren't any real war criminals left.

@johndoe6298

Жыл бұрын

@@itskarl7575 "People whom the prosecutors of the Nuremberg trials weren't remotely interested in" It wasn't just Allied prosecutors after the war that ignored lower ranking personnel, but Germany as well. During the 1960s and 70s, West Germany began a series of trials of Nazi war criminals, as a new generation of political and legal professionals came of age who had been too young to have been complicit in the Third Reich. In part motivated by the trial of Adolf Eichmann in Israel, they prosecuted a variety of SS and police commanders who had committed crimes. However, the vast majority of Nazi war criminals never even stood trial, let alone faced conviction. Despite its progress, for too long Germany dragged its feet in bringing many to trial and by the time their was political will, many were already dead. For many years there were influential people in both Germanies who had vested interests in not digging up the past, such as wartime records they didn't want to draw attention to. Some perpetrators weren't even identified until long after their deaths. Sometimes it was due to lack of evidence (hardly surprising in genocide against people from multiple countries), other times due to bureaucratic obstacles. The Cold War context created further problems, since many survivors or witnesses lived in the communist bloc, where access was limited. Many West German officials didn't want to strain relations with NATO allies and create sympathy for countries in the Eastern Bloc (where many crimes had been perpetrated). Additionally, their allies didn't want to alienate West Germans by trying to pressure the government in Bonn (and the Soviets faced the same issue in East Germany, so West Germany was cast as the Third Reich's successor and an "ally of Western imperialism"). Some documents that could have been used as evidence were also held in Eastern European archives for decades. The Soviets captured many "trophy" documents that only became publicly available after the USSR's dissolution, including many of the technical blueprints for Auschwitz. And that's before we even get into all the collaboration in occupied territories or other Axis powers. For example, no French government acknowledged Vichy France's role in rounding up Jews for the German occupiers until 1995. encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/war-crimes-trials www.yadvashem.org/yv/en/exhibitions/through-the-lens/auschwitz-blueprints.asp en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Chirac#State_responsibility_for_the_roundup_of_Jews

Fascinating stuff. The most telling aspect of this lecture was on the subject of the mentality of the German military at that time. The high command had an inherent weakness by placing a higher emphasis on tactics & maneuvers while ignoring the overall strategy at large was very telling and insightful. But the biggest shocker was to discover that the German high command never consulted intelligence reports or logistics data when preparing for an attack. That is just mind boggling. With a practice such as that, how can you possibly hang the whole defeat around Hitler's neck alone? You could never win a war with a traditional military custom like that.

@Stalley75

9 жыл бұрын

Britton Thompson I don't really know what you're talking about. It seems like Germany lost the war because they got nuked.

@timobrienwells

9 жыл бұрын

Britton Thompson Most of what this guy says is wrong, and it is known as historical revisionism. These American "Professors" cant stop trying to validate themselves by re-writing history. All of these things that he is talking about were Adolf Hitler's way of doing things, not the general staff. The Wehrmacht ALWAYS considered intelligence and logistics when planning an operation. It was Hitler who continually ignored these crucial areas. Absolute rubbish.

@TheBoldImperator

8 жыл бұрын

+timobrienwells Are you a Prussian general reincarnated or just an enormous Kaliningradboo? 'muh germania invicta!" 'g-germany never defeated"

@timobrienwells

8 жыл бұрын

+TheBoldImperator Are you attempting to be rational?

@TheBoldImperator

8 жыл бұрын

timobrienwells prussiaboo it is lol

Excellent lecture and great interactive session

I nearly had a heart attack when he showed the October 1942 command structure. That is just an abomination.

@pomme4moi

4 жыл бұрын

Jamie Kamihachi We should all be thankful the command structure of Nazi Germany was so screwed up.

@SelfReflective

3 жыл бұрын

@@pomme4moi Not just the army command structure. The whole politico-economic system of Nazi Germany was unsustainable...There is this notion of Germans being highly efficient and pedantic, and with Nazis being super-charged Germans, the Third Reich must have been the epitome of efficiency and productivity...the truth is far different.

@edgehodl4832

3 жыл бұрын

@@SelfReflective just look at production of tanks, only 1300 tiger tanks were produced. U have to call Germans idiots because u can't call them otherwise. They lived in alternate reality during the war, completely disullisioned

@blablablayahoo

3 жыл бұрын

@@edgehodl4832 The Germans were not in any position to mass produce tanks like the Soviets or USA.

@danieltadros3262

3 жыл бұрын

I still laugh at people who praise General Rommel. Rommel failed and had to leave North Africa.

I enjoyed this talk very much and I learned a great deal, thank you.

Most excellent, thanks for the presentation and the video.

No doubt, the captured German generals made a great deal of positive impression to the Western Allies because they had the benefit of: (1) the onset of the Cold War which pretty much ruled out the Soviet view of the Soviet-German War [but the Soviets probably have lot more to say about the Germans]; (2) everyone took for granted that Hitler was a lunatic [but lunacy alone does not imply incompetence]; (3) the Allies were a bit too awed by German tactical/operational superiority [but tactical/operational superiority can be more than canceled out by ill-conceived strategy].

@timobrienwells

9 жыл бұрын

Waterflux The ill-conceived strategy was entirely of Hitler's making. The General staff did not knock on Hitler's door one day and say, "let's invade Russia" or "Let's declare war on America". Hitler was a gambler who ignored the odds and doubled the stakes, and like all rubes he lost big time.

@Waterflux

9 жыл бұрын

Very easy to blame Hitler for poor strategy by the sore losers like the German generals. The overwhelming number of them believed in him; a major reason for the emergence of Hitler had to do with the contempt for the social democrats during the turbulent 1930s. Basically, they wanted a leader who was willing to rip the Treaty of Versailles into shreds and undo the setbacks of the post WW1 settlements and beyond.

@timobrienwells

9 жыл бұрын

Waterflux Yes , that may be true, but when you get down to the details, it was Hitler who made the disasterous decisions, both large and small. Early on in the war he showed restraint and some good sense, but later on he lost his grip on battlefield realities.

@timobrienwells

9 жыл бұрын

Waterflux Yes, that is correct. Guderian actually advised Hitler not too take the offensive in 1943, but Hitler said it was needed for 'political reasons'. Manstein believed that the Soviet offensive could be handled in a similar way to the counter-attack at Karkhov in March 1943.

@hedgehog3180

6 жыл бұрын

timobrienwells I mean even if Hitler was a lunatic, the generals are still to blame for continuing to follow him. The proper response if you're lead by a madman is to depose him, not to continue following along. Now obviously they would never have done that because they knew that Germany had dug itself into a hole too deep and the Allies would not simply forget the crimes it had carried out and that they had gone along with enthusiastically.

I thought the Allies defeated the Germans in WW2. US, Soviet Union, Great Britain and her commonwealths and dominions. All helped one and another, and stayed united thru the cause.

@davidtrindle6473

11 ай бұрын

Yes, and 90% of the fighting and dying occurred in the soviet union.

Great examination of the historical information, summarizes, and layout clearly what happened. Thku very much

So scary how such a small segment of humanity can cause so much hell

@woodenseagull1899

10 ай бұрын

I question whether Germany has any humanity..?

he discussion of the weaknesses of the German General Staff did not mention the best American example of going "over superiors' heads." General Patton is used as an example of someone who did NOT go over his superior's head and we can all sort of nod our heads and say, "Yes, that would not have been an acceptable way of making his case for more resources or whatever." But General MacArthur was exactly that kind of political and essentially insubordinate animal, lobbying the President when Nimitz and King and Marshall would not agree to his grand plans. MacArthur even allowed his supporters to float his candidacy for President in the 1944 election as a way of gaining support from his potential rival.

58:50 i've heard there were clashes between the heer and the ss over who would get resources and manpower

Excellent talk that revealed the weaknesses and culpability of the Wehrmacht

had they concentrated on building flying saucers everything would have been just fine

@MarcosElMalo2

2 жыл бұрын

Or if they had done better research on how to operate the Ark of the Covenant.

@michaelterry4394

Жыл бұрын

Yah you are correct sir. I did not know that LOL.

Very interesting talk. Thanks for sharing.

First, your lectures are great. As an old student of military history from the Swedish Military College I appreciate your take on things. However, the quality of the video and audio are sadly not up to the quality of the talks. Maybe if you had slightly better quality (say 480p) you would have more traffic to your videos. Thank you!

@etwas013

5 жыл бұрын

Seriously, if you as a Swede don't see the colossal mistakes in this lecture, then god help you.

@markwillies7309

3 жыл бұрын

@@etwas013 perhaps you could have pointed those out to non-Swedes as we weren't all so lucky to be born a Swede

@thethirdman225

3 жыл бұрын

@@etwas013 Oh please, do point out the errors so that we, the great unwashed, may all benefit from your omnipotence.

@etwas013

3 жыл бұрын

​@@thethirdman225 @Mark Willies Ok. Mr. Megargee blames German general staff for Hitler's politics. He misunderstands the concept of the "will" in command. He thinks it is stubbornness or ego contest. He understands the command principles as a set of rigid rules. He proves the incompetence of the general staff with mutually exclusive proofs - officers disrespected the chain of command but disrespected too little when they disagreed. He believes the chain of command was faulty because the did not properly identify the basic principles of German command. He mixes military and non-military subjects, such as diplomacy and binds military and foreign intelligence into one group, they should not be. Military officers can be advisors but not decision makers in diplomacy and here is where Hitler failed. He claims that German logistics were bad based on the amount of officers assigned. He assumes US officers were as good as German. There are only a few specific military areas where German logistics failed, but the usual blame goes to the civilian government that failed to mobilise the economy in time. There is also no proof that German logistics were worse than Allied, they were likely better, considering the longer distances German army was capable of and the fact that it was largely horse driven, whereas WAllied armies were all motorised. German military intelligence was no worse than Allied. As Germans, so did all WAllies expect easy German victory against the Soviets. The principal advantage of WAllied intelligence against Germans was entirely based in civilian skill of Polish and British cryptographers. There is literally only one single major mistake in German strategic thinking, the conviction of being able to defeat the USSR in one season. Everything else depended on this. All Allied efforts were only successful because they could bind 70% of German army in Russia and Soviets survived only because the UK and USA upheld the production of entire sectors of industry in the crucial year of 1942. Mr. Megargee's entire assumptions on the proper conduct of military operations are based on misunderstanding this event. Germans never planned to conquer entire Russia. They didn't make wrong logistic plans, they misunderstood the potential of communism and the people's will to fight. In military terms they achieved the planned - the destruction of the Soviet army in Europe. But there were 100 more divisions ready before the campaign could continue. That is the mistake he should be focusing on. What is ironic in all of this is that the US army of ww2 had a much more sober opinion on the events and flatly admitted that only tremendous number disparity were able to stop Germans. This was also the base of post war US doctrines. Just bring more weapons to the fight than the opponent.

@zuluzeit7191

3 жыл бұрын

I don't get the whole Swede-specific part making it so egregious thing.

Even a top-notch OKW would not have saved Germany. Failure to get the oil for its economy and the fact that it was very centralized led to crippling shortages across the board. Without a working economy, collapse was inevitable. Very similar story for Japan in fact.

1 hour and no mention of Col. Klink.

@mikecimerian6913

9 жыл бұрын

inmhstn He went awol tracking Shultz out on a strudel rampage.

@percybyssheshelly

9 жыл бұрын

inmhstn Dude, that was a good one!

@TommygunNG

8 жыл бұрын

+inmhstn Especially since that in the one episode, Klink was put in as Chief of Staff because he was so incompetent.

@jamesberlo4298

7 жыл бұрын

Thats awesome, its hilarious.

@scottleft3672

6 жыл бұрын

ol clink had the last laugh...."such a boy"

Excellent, and right to the point.

@davidsabillon5182

3 жыл бұрын

This ☝️

Excellent, just excellent. Bravo.

40:45 -- "They weren't concerned about the United States." Their memories must have failed them: it was the entry of the U.S. into WW1 that doomed Germany to defeat. In anticipation of the arrival of U.S. forces, Germany launched the 1918 Spring Offensive -- which failed. Once enough U.S. troops had landed in France, the Western Allies went on the offensive and quickly defeated an exhausted Germany. How could they have forgotten that?

@pacificstatesofamerica

5 жыл бұрын

Kevin Byrne Perhaps they simply did. The US military had fewer troops than Bulgaria if I remember in the 1930s. The buildup still took years for a 1944 landing.

@JRobbySh

4 жыл бұрын

Our role in 1918 was limited. The French and British did the heavy lifting because our troops were too inexperienced. We did add our weight, counterbalancing the transfer of German troops from east to west in the Spring.

@kevinbyrne4538

4 жыл бұрын

@@JRobbySh -- As I said, Germany could have tried to hold their positions in the West and fight a defensive war. However, Germany decided to launch a desperate, last ditch offensive -- because they could see the troopships pouring Americans into France. The German offensive failed and German resistance crumbled. I'm not diminishing the roles of the British or the French, but the prospect of fighting all of those Americans drove the Germans to desperation.

@lkrnpk

2 жыл бұрын

@@kevinbyrne4538 I don't know, due to the limited American role in WW1 I think they might have thought that Americans would be just some yokels relying on British experience and supporting the Brits. The US did not have a huge experience with wars in Europe at the time, even in WW1 the role was very limited. There was not much of an experience with big wars for the US since the Civil War too, and that was almost a 100 years before WW2, so despite all the economic might of USA they might have believed that US would lack will to fight abroad, in Europe, for whatever reason and thought Americans to be more like businessmen and ''I want deal" people than warriors. In a way there were correct as in 30s US didn't really have a massive army and by late 1941 American tech for fighting the war was worse compared to what the Reich had. It took time to build up. The fact is, Europe had been gearing for war for some years already, US had not. When we look at it through today's prism it might seem strange how they didn't see it to be a huge problem, but at the time USA was still kinda on par or even behind British Empire and Nazi Germany in tech, or when it comes to military tech it was certainly behind as those countries had already prepared for war for a few years and in war technologies develop rapidly, like tanks and the use of them from 1939 to late 1941. Or planes. USA could build a lot of trucks and ships though and was an economic powerhouse but it could be uncertain how interested they would be to commit huge armed forces to Europe when they also had to fight Japan and how effective these soldiers would be, since Germans knew that they had been prepped culturally for war for years while Americans... maybe they thought they would be French-like

Hitler's Cash rewards to generals may have also played a roll in the beginning. It can't be discounted as an incentive .

Good answer around the 44 minute mark on why Hitler declared war on the US. A couple of additional comments. 11 December had been planned for months--U-boats were positioned off the Atlantic Seaboard, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Caribbean. This had to have been planned months before for them to all start on 11 December.

@mikejohnson5537

7 жыл бұрын

I was being sarcastic with my first sentence, which unfortunately doesn't show up well. I was making the statement that the German declaration of war on the US was not something decided on after Japan attacked the US--indeed that idea was ridiculous. There clearly had been months preparing for this offensive against the US (particularly against US coastal trade). The US military budget was substantially higher for the fiscal year beginning in July 1941 than in any of the years prior--it had effectively doubled over 1940/41. US naval forces were becoming substantially more active and there had been a "phony peace" for five months in the Atlantic. Yes, Lead-Lease was part of the issue. Germany was facing an increasingly active USN that threatened Germany's only hope to defeat Britain--cutting off its trade. It took time to prepare for this offensive. It didn't just happen over night.

@JRobbySh

4 жыл бұрын

They even used short range as well as U-boots in the operation. All got away scot free after inflicting heavy losses on shipping. The German Navy did well despite been short-sheeted in war production. Raeder quit for that reason. Never figured why he got hit for war crimes.

Poor quality audio. Why? the talk starts about 10 minutes in I think. But the audio is still poor so...

@mkrump9403

7 жыл бұрын

It's video recording by cassette type from the storage room that's keeping the 80's items. All money went to Iraq.

Dr. Megargee mentions the word "rational" a couple of times. If the German armed forces should be known for one thing only it would have to be irrationality. Everything they did was irrational and the only difference between the early successes and the inevitable defeat was that their luck ran out and they met determined, organized resistance.

How much did the consumption of drugs by many soldiers in the German army during World War II affected outcomes of battles or the overall outcome of World War II? From 1939 to 1945, the Third Reich astonished Europe with its Blitzkrieg on all battlefronts. Its military efficiency has since then been a leitmotiv of history studies. This has been traditionally attributed to its technological superiority and optimisation, as well as its innovative strategies. Indeed, everything was accurately calculated, from the weight of the firearms to the offensive timings. The Wehrmacht would not leave anything to chance. However, there is one more trick to consider: performance-enhancing drugs

Seems like nothing new. All army’s have the same issues. FDR, Churchill, Stalin all had different ideas and goals, Eisenhower, Bradly, Patton, Montgomery were all going side ways in the structure of command. As usual some one had to step up. In Russia Zhukov and Konev.Allied it was Eisenhower administratively and in my opinion Bradley in the field controlling Patton and Monty. I think Bradley is the real leader. In my opinion the Germans started eating their own and as supplies failed and huge losses of skilled soldiers were depleted it just got progressively worse and Hitler fell into that delusional leaders seem to repeat, thinking their men can do anything with nothing (Lee). Even though his high command tried to reason it was over?

@alexplotkin3368

2 жыл бұрын

The Allies and USSR did coordinate about grand strategy and logistics. German intelligence was awful. No real coordination between Germany and Japan.

Great lecture broski.

Excellent lecture. First eye-opener in quite a while, and particularly in the revelation that the army was really hand in hand with the SS in the exploitation and commission of war crimes in the occupied zones.

@haldir3120

2 жыл бұрын

I am baffled that there people believing the Nazi soldiers were clean. I am hearing this for the first time and apparently this view is wildly shared. I am not sure though were the notion originates from. These people were the armed forces of a Nazi regime. How can they possibly innocent? It is on the same level of somebody claiming the IS soldiers are clean and only the political Part of the IS is at fault.

I liked the speaker’s mention of the US reaction after not winning in Vietnam to show that the Germans weren’t unique in blaming civilians for a military loss.

Interesting stuff, thanks … however - if you close your eyes - every now and then, Dr Megargee sounds eerily like Dan Aykroyd ;)

Excellent presentation. Fine scholarship and delivery. Interesting, important topic. Thank you. It is hard to contemplate the consensus necessary to enable Germany's depredations in WWII..............and our capacity for the same. We'd rather not acknowledge such.

@timobrienwells

9 жыл бұрын

Chuck U. Farley II The only problem Chuck is that this guy is wrong. When he is the accusing the General Staff of doing is exactly what was Hitler guilty of. He has the whole topic ass backwards.

@chucku.farleyii3181

9 жыл бұрын

timobrienwells If I'm not mistaken, he point was that Hitler wasn't an outlier on the policies GERMANY and its ARMY followed, but was representative of their views. You assert a denial of his exact point and exonerate the generals as if their role, complicity and execution of the godless policies weren't important. If there is an ass backward here it is you. Hitler acting alone, out of necessity, could only have been a murderer or incidental mass murder, not a propagator of a national policy of aggressive war for territory, enslavement of millions and genocide of still more millions. That took more than one man to do. The takeaway you should get is that your assertion (and presumably belief) that Hitler acted alone and the people in the military should be exonerated as honorable and noble disciplined "order followers" is counter-intuitive. Of course the high command acted to make the genocides, enslavements and territorial theft real.......more than just an evil man's fantasy. In fact, they made it real.

@scottleft3672

6 жыл бұрын

We ....who is "we"....bend over....an isis fan needs a chai boy.

These are very interesting lectures. I imagine they’re giving at war colleges, etc. etc. but, to what avail? Vietnam Korea Afghanistan, Iraq the stupidity of the endless we learn nothing.

Great lecture.

Why don't they check the sound????👿👿👿👿

Much of the approach seems to mirror Hitler's approach of will conquering all obstacles. As a compelling figure as Hitler was, I can see how many could simply "sign on" secondarily and mostly to cult of personality, as if Hitler knew something that the rest of them didn't. Which of course with the advantage of history, can be seen not to be true.

I concede these are well presented, but anyone who has made a cursory study of the war had heard it all before, over and over again, for decades. The stereotype of the Nazi state or the Wehrmacht as especially efficient or well organized has been shattered for 50 years, though as Dr. Megargee notes there are some truths worth bringing back as against the modern stereotype of it as a complete shambles. The same is true of the "Myth of the Clean Wehrmacht"- shattered 50 years, if indeed anyone pushing it in the 40s and 50s entirely believed it at all. And Omer Bartov gave an excellent summation already in the early 90s. It was just useful. We all had a new set of totalitarian mass murderers against which to square off and it was useful to not have to jail every German private or indeed major or staff officer unless we could prove they had committed a specific war crime. Of such things are myths made, but it has its virtues when every private or major or staff officer probably didn't all commit any specific war crimes.

16:21 If a story Col. Nicholas Moran told in his Little Known Facts About the Fall of France video is true then the French did not give this power to their staff officers. A staff officer was told by a General Gronsoird (my guess at the spelling) that he could order the General's attack if his mentally paralyzed subordinate did not do it in time. This was not enough to get that mentally paralyzed superior to move and the Germans were not repelled from the crossing they were making in the Ardennes. 24:09 An argument against the, "just following orders" proposition was accidentally introduced prior to this. If German officers were so willing to go over their superiors' heads then why not go over their superiors' heads when they were ordered to burn ammo, time, and human beings?

Interesting talk

@richardsimms251

2 жыл бұрын

Wonderful talk. So helpful. Thank you. RS Canada

When I think of the High Command I think of a collection of sycophants to varying degrees, a squabble of power grabbers here and there, punctuated by the occasional closeted individual. But that is always the case. A microcosm of society as a whole, really, with a military twist.

@250txc

4 жыл бұрын

Sounds correct in many ways you have pointed out but the terms ignorance and absolutely stupid people should be applied also. Stupidity causes stupid ones to attract other stupid ones and they cling together much like gravity attracts matter together. Stupid people are the dangerous people on earth due to the fact they orbit and cling together.

@SuperPhunThyme9

4 жыл бұрын

add a severe bitterness due to what was arguably both justified, but abusive economic terms of the Versailles Treaty..... ...and Germany was out for blood. It seems like we (the allies) learned our lesson though when you look at how we treated Japan after the war....and it really paid off; Japan became our greatest ally next to England within one generation! I just think that's incredible, to be honest.

@Johnconno

2 жыл бұрын

I think of the current Johnson government, venal, ambitious, misanthropic misfits.

@davidtrindle6473

11 ай бұрын

@@250txcperhaps instead of stupid it might be more accurate to place the blame on the uneducated. Educational and the ability to think clearly, which can be taught.

@250txc

11 ай бұрын

@@davidtrindle6473 A person can only be educated if they desire to be educated .. Either they desire to remain in the dark, totally not understanding what they might be missing or they actually are too dim \ stupid to learn anything. -- Jan 6th, 2021 at our capital is an example of stupidity... Behavior of this pathetic scale was NOT a one day, one moment event. for those... There is still a cop killer at large from that event.

I need to link this lecture to the next thread I see in a military history web forum from Wehrmacht fanboys that the Heer wasn't really lockstep with AH.

I never ever had any representation of the German General Staff as "anti-nazi" ! Unless grossly misinformed, i don't know anybody who could havé.

@jondickison5802

4 жыл бұрын

Do not forget some staff was a nazi only on paper because they had to.

@alexm566

Жыл бұрын

operation valkyrie

@Humorless_Wokescold

Жыл бұрын

@@alexm566 Valkyrie was conducted by colonels. The general staff was still completely loyal to Hitler. It was really only a small pool of officers that saw through the BS.

@alexm566

Жыл бұрын

@@Humorless_Wokescold I am sure they were all smart enough to see through the BS, just like the current Russian generals, but they're in too deep to do anything about it.

@Humorless_Wokescold

Жыл бұрын

@@alexm566 ok that I agree with. Hell, I bet German generals hung on for a lot of the same reasons Russian generals are. There's a lot of money in being a high ranking military commander in a corrupt nation.

Professor, thank you. It really gives me pride that I am an U.S. Citizen who had such such an impact on the unbelievable results of my countries involvement in WWII. My father and my uncle risks their lives in achieving that Victory. Unfortunately, what I see today gives me pause in whether our descendants understand what was sacrifices for their prosperity and honor, not to mention the benefits to mankind. There is obviously a higher power involved, and this is from someone who has advance degrees in both technology and and Business.

@PE4Doers

Жыл бұрын

I do take exception to you off-comment about Vietnam however - but we are all human.

@keziahdelaney8174

Жыл бұрын

Do u enjoy (((their))) precious liberal democracy? Or u haven't had enough degeneracy yet? Your father fought for the banksters and the deep state of the paedophiles. Your state was/is the enemy, nor another country at the other side of an ocean, trying to liberate it's self from the slavery of debt and (((their))) grip.

@PE4Doers

Жыл бұрын

@@theinvisibleman2070 Oh well, so I flunked English comp, but I still know how to vote

@PE4Doers

Жыл бұрын

@@theinvisibleman2070 Actually I did - but in 5th grade I had a 9th grade math level

@Brett733

10 ай бұрын

Why do you need to brag about your degrees in your rambling incoherent comment? You have very poor grammar for a US Citizen with multiple "advanced degrees" and you seem highly delusional and mentally unstable.

I’m looking forward to "Not the Stuff of Legend: The American High Command in Vietnam and Afghanistan”

@NoNameAtAll2

3 ай бұрын

probably won't be in english

@howmuchmorecanItake

Ай бұрын

The dude who wrote Westmoreland's War did a pretty good lecture on command failings in Vietnam. Honestly, it's pretty easy to find a few Vietnam lectures on this channel, and some other channels have the Afghanistan ones you want. If you want this specific lecture, do it yourself! There's plenty of sources to pull from and plenty of lectures to watch to get all the pieces of the picture, and I'd genuinely love to see your lecture on it!

@babychuma1

19 күн бұрын

Read "the Afghanistan papers"

@toddfromwork8931

3 күн бұрын

No, only the Germans are bad

I believe it has to be considered that a lot of lapses in judgement on the side of aggressiveness - from Hitler on down to the very foot soldier - can be attributed to the widespread use of stimulant amphetamines such as Pervitin. I believe they must play a role, or they wouldn't be using them in the first place.

@mikhailiagacesa3406

Жыл бұрын

I'd say about 30%.

The German High Command or General Staff was most incompetent among the major belligerents of WW2. They were the biggest reason for Germany's defeat bcoz they had no clear vision and goal, they didn't had any strategy to conduct a long term war. Due to this Wehrmacht suffered disastrously, though they negate this on tactical level, but on operational and Strategic level this sheer incompetence of General staff without any realistic war planning paved the way for the disastrous German defeat and enormous casualties.

Small european countries, even the most powerful ones, simply cannot understand the sheer size and scope of places like Russia, the United States, and the old British Empire. Any one of these can out-compete Germany 1-v-1. They took on all three. They expected 3 more Frances, not 3 more WHOLE EUROPES

28:45, thirteen weeks they said, with two week break in-between they said lololoolol

Warlimonts book covers this. Half dry half fascinating.

I am from germany and maybe there is some revionist thing going on here, yet from what i remember from our history lessons that theme "stabbed in the back" was more referring to the treaties of versaile after WWI. I am currently reading Keynes analysis from those treaties and why and how they would have failed. When Hitler came into power it was in a period of hunger, mass unemployment and people complettly demoralized due to the treaties of versaile and the economic pressure it put on germany and by that prolonging the negativ effects onto germany initiated by WWI. If not for that background the Marshal Plan may never have worked or even been thought out in the first place. I do agree though purely from logic, that the whole chain of command is responsible for the actions which lead to attrocities starting from genocide of ethnic groups to carpet bombing london. As would be the case with Abu Ghraib, using Agent Orange in the vietnam war and its effect on the populace and well there was Hiroshima and Nagasaki all that rather in recent history. Going back further we could find more things where a joint responsibility even from the entire nation would need to be carried. Pretty much the same can be said for nearly every nation on earth. Our culture is a thin line over our animalistic instincts and barbarism. Though the scale of industralised inhumanity we germans achieved i hope noone has to witness again.

@thomasjamison2050

4 жыл бұрын

You need to be aware of the fact that the Western European Allies had very little understanding of how the Germans conceived of their position in Europe relative to Russia, which was the potential monster on its eastern borders, more or less. Roosevelt and the followers of Woodrow Wilson, for a long time, thought that the Communist movement in Russia was something wonderful and something that would lead the world into a better place. The British, OTOH, were largely ignorant of Eastern Europe as evidenced by Chamberlain referring to Czechoslovakia as 'a faraway place of which we know very little." Americans still laugh that German generals could conceive of the notion that the allies might eventually join Germany in its fight for survival against Communism, but in fact, this indeed did ultimately come to be as a reality.

@coconut6468

4 жыл бұрын

Another German apologist? Please, do stop.

240p upload??? You guys must really be on a tight budget and still using AOL dial-up 14.4 modems on copper phone lines.

The allies had enigma, what an advantage, no legends in the allied high commands either - how could they lose ?

@rbaxter286

Ай бұрын

Why is Enigma always treated as some kind of 'cheating', when it was the FECKLESSNESS of the fools it destroyed that ALSO has to be included, and the FAILURE of those staffs, who only worshiped Audacity and Boldness on the battlefield, to the scorn of intelligence, logistics, and planning? I refer people to Francis Bacon's essay "Of Boldness" to see the reason The Bold will not endure, but only steal marches until The Wise get their measure and exploit the FAULTS of The Bold. The ALLIES could have lost by not properly planning, supporting, and executing the War for the Atlantic, the creation of Fortress UK, the counter-attacks and attacks that blunted Barbarossa before Moscow, the planning, supporting and executing of the never-before seen naval battles and power projection in the Pacific, the support and arming of China, ..., all at the same time. The GERMANS and their COMMAND and GOVERNMENT filled with psychopaths, sociopaths, and criminals should be question and derided by the question "How could they WIN a war that was so brutal and criminal that they would not be utterly destroyed just for The Good of Humanity!"

In its pursuit of glory the German High Command was vainglorious.

Idk but I think these guys were trying to mess up the image of other great nations and trying to declare their country was the best

@leonodonoghueburke4276

3 жыл бұрын

What do you mean?

Abadisa of this message or any match atacs

The audio is pretty bad.

@pnwesterner6220

5 жыл бұрын

Because it an old video cassette tape, 20-30 year old technology

talk about lo res...though a good talk. thanks for leavin' comments open

OK Germany lost WWII and there were many contributing factors including deficiencies of the High Command; there are many books written and lectures on KZread. Why are there so few lectures on KZread examining our history in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan etc and why success evaded us?

Many Americans believe the US defeated Nazi Germany and are unaware of the destruction of the Wehrmacht by the Red Army. This is shown by the number of German soldiers killed by the Red Army on the Eastern front is estimated at 2,742,909. Those killed by all other Allies is estimated at 534,683 and only began ground fighting 10 months before the Germans surrendered. The supplying of trucks, food and aircraft which greatly helped the Soviet army.

@emptyhearted9981

8 жыл бұрын

I am American and always knew who suffered the most (Russians) and who inflicted the most damage to the Germans,again Russians,clearly the U.S. gave up the least and gained the most. this is not a knock on my country just facts

@theoldprof

8 жыл бұрын

Rog volley There are few who agree with us. So let us not tire of correcting Hollywood, it takes nothing away from the brave Western Allies who fought Nazis from D-Day to the German surrender. If you have not seen Remember the Russians on D-Day, it is worth reading. AT: asiansecurityblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/06/remember-the-russians-on-d-day/

@theodoreward1862

8 жыл бұрын

+theoldprof Well Americans did win the war for the Allies. Deaths really mean nothing, since anyone can send people to die, before we go further I would just like to add your number is total dead in the Eastern front, not killed by Red Army, if your going by Overmans statistics that is. His total statistics for killed in action is 2,303,320. For all fronts. For all fronts since I feel you need to read this twice. So either find a number that better suits your needs of whatever propaganda your trying to spread, or admit your own failure to read into details. Overmans total dead in the German army was 5,318,531, minus the two numbers you said and we have 2,040,939 left unaccounted for. There should only be 1,689,520 as those were prisoners of war, added with final battles in Germany. Change your wording too, since your talking about all other allies only fighting 10 months before Germany surrendered, when that's really bullshit because you had fighting in Africa since June 10th, 1940. Britain was a ally and they fought with the French since the start of the War, and in the Fall of France which started on May 10th, 1940. Poland was a ally to, need I tell you that the USSR and Germany invaded Poland to start this war. All this fighting happening before the USSR was really even in the war. Some further evidence that death means nothing,  321,000-363,000 total casualties on the Soviet side in the Winter War. 70,000 total casualties on the Finnish side of the Winter war. Only two ways to take that. Admit death means nothing and move on to a different talking point. Fight and say Finland won the Winter War. Just to add a point America captured 3 million German prisoners of war, Britain captured 3,600,000 POWs,  why the Soviet Union only captured 3 million German prisoners of war, need I mention the Soviet Union killed, worked to death, or starved about a million of those, with America and Britain combined only ending with 12 thousand dead at MAX. With all that outta the way I will finally be able to talk about why it was America that won the war for everyone. America took Japan outta the war. There's not a single major contribution that any other power made in the war with Japan that took place without America. So America took on the country that made this a World War and beat them into submission. America kept Britain in the war. This kept 40 percent of the German Army defending the Western front. There's also all the American and British bombing and crippling of German industry that stopped them from being able to properly equip their armies, get tanks out to fight, or make synthetic fuel.  Bombing would also include destroying of almost any German infrastructure to, stopping resources or equipment from being sent anywhere. It was really Americas, and Britain's grasp of logistics that won the war in Europe.

@kimcage6455

8 жыл бұрын

+theoldprof Your point about the Red Army is right but the western allies did not wait until D-Day to fight. Britain and France fought in France until in the fight continued France fell. Then Britain, her Empire and the Free French/Free Poles etc fought in Africa, Greece, Syria, Sicily and Italy, not to mention the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic which arguably was the crucial front of the entire war, since US forces and Lend Lease materiel could never have crossed the ocean if Germany had grabbed control of the sea.

@midlandredux

8 жыл бұрын

+theoldprof - Do you have a source for this narrative that Americans believe the United States defeated Nazi Germany? I've never read a book or an article that takes that view, and never heard a lecture or speech that makes such a claim. Most Americans who know anything about the war are aware that the Soviet Union did most of the ground fighting in Europe. Hollywood of course, when it does movies about the war, mostly makes them about Americans. Does any other nation's film industry do otherwise?

How come so many historians ignore that one of the key factors that led to the rise of the nazis and hitler was opportunity. The German army leadership was a highly prestigious and gate kept institution. The nazi party and subsequent paramilitary organizations gave people the opportunity to rise that they wouldn’t have been previously. The established cohort of leadership families did not like these upstarts who performed better than them and had them killed (slipping flight plans to the enemy and watching it go boom). After this they expunged them from the record. Himmler, Manstein, and a few other colonel/general level individuals are what drove the war machine and strategic thought. Also the ones who hitler actually listened to. As these men were murdered, once again the crap rose to the top of the porta potty and Hitler was isolated as he watched these men be murdered and betrayed by the very men seeking to give him advice now. This isn’t even getting into the drug addictions among that crowd post late 1942.

He said, "truth to power" in his opening remarks. As a non-liberal, what does that even mean???

The massive surprise Germany at the number of Russian tanks - Maybe Russia kept their tanks too far from Germany for them to be spotted by reconnaissance planes? It was a long way from Poland to for example Moscow. Return flight 1600 miles/ 2500 km but being easily the world’s largest country, Russia had a LOT of space to hide them

Who in their right mind, could ever imagine the High Command that lost the war as “the stuff of legend”?

22:18... yeap

Germany invaded the Soviet Union with a logistical system that relied on horses. Totally bonkers.

@Chepicoro

11 ай бұрын

A myth, yes they had more than 600k horses but their logistics depended mainly on trucks and trains... Soviet logistics relied much more on animal transport... That is the main reason in 1941-1942 behind why a German division could expend more ammunition and recover faster than their soviet counterparts

The question at 54.16 is misconceived. Hess didn't fly to England, but to Scotland. Specifically his destination was in West Central Scotland, probably because it had inadequate radar cover and air defence. The West of Scotland was deemed by the Air Ministry to be "out of range" for German bombers. This had been comprehensively proved wrong, and the paucity of air defence revealed, by the Clydebank Blitz just less than two months previously. If Hess didn't know it already, that revealed how easily he could fly there (using auxiliary fuel tanks) with minimal risk of being engaged by fighters or anti-aircraft fire. To have attempted to reach almost anywhere in England would have been a shorter flight, but would have exposed him to much greater risk of being shot down.

@pnwesterner6220

5 жыл бұрын

I'll qibble even more with you, the reference would have been correct if they used Great Britain.

@pnwesterner6220

5 жыл бұрын

Hess went to specific location where he believed a member of the House of Lords would be.

Who ever thought the High Command was “independent”?? That wasn’t even taught in history in primary school

Look how weak Russia looks in 2023...it probably looked comparably weak in 1941...Germans use to taking over what were basically city states in Europe as well. It gets really really big as you live east and there are a ton of people out there.

And where is the beloved Sargent Shultz in this organization?

@scottleft3672

6 жыл бұрын

eating strudel....vere else.

@Grimenoughtomaketherobotcry

4 жыл бұрын

@@scottleft3672 Vere else? Having it off with Fraulein Hilda!

@carbunkle9902

3 жыл бұрын

He hear nuting, see nuting! He couldn't go to the eastern front because of his back, his neck and his heart. "A bullet in any one of those places could be fataaaaaal!"

I agree that logistics were absurd. Next to that, the comintern pact - axis with Japan (purely ornamental, forfeited any chance to keep peace with the USA) and Italy (which, maybe cost Germany the war). To bail out Mussolini in North Africa, Jugoslavia and Greece, Germany had to commit substantial forces. This led to the third major reason: Lack of proper timing. Without the Italian engagement Hitler would have had 2-3 months before winter broke in Russia. Imperial overstrech, false allies. England did not want peace. The war had to be foght out. Germany was to be eradicated. By pure economic supremacy Germany reached most war goals with the hegemonially governed „European Union“. Germany loves the Italians but does not respect them. The Italians respect Germans but do not love them.

@tashahatzidakis5680

3 жыл бұрын

Germany wanted a peace with Britain They could of killed them all at Dunkirk

Why does every ww2 lecture have worst audio possible

No, it wasn’t the stuff of legend. The fact is, the disproportionate casualties the Germans inflicted on their enemies in both World Wars comes down to the conviction and discipline of the average soldier.

I have watched and read a lot of War Staff College "Experts'" videos and treatises analyzing one aspect or the other of the German military command failings in WWII and they all have the underlying assumption that the general high regard the German military was held in is mostly a myth with little basis in fact. Their treatise then goes on in extreme minutiae to define their view of why. All I have read/watched have merit but what I think almost all fail to recognize/properly weigh and state up front in their analysis is that by 1944/1945 America had more manufacturing capacity then the rest of the world combined and the war outcome was a fait accompli...both the Germans and the Japanese were getting ground down by superior numbers and superior weapons platforms (not to mention on top of that we still had the national resources to build the bomb). The fact that the German military held out as long as they did and fought as well as they did, with almost no fuel and very little capability to replace damaged/lost equipment or men is a testament to their command and control that still presented the Allies with difficult battles right up until April of '45. Yes we kicked their asses, but very little had to do with the German military or Japan military failings but rather we just out manufactured them and out resourced them. Of course it certainly didn't help the German cause that their other front was against the 2nd largest manufacturing country in the world, albeit far behind America's (a U.S. Marine vet. and Ph.D. Engineer who works for a large American defense contractor's Missile Systems company.

@IrishCarney

4 жыл бұрын

No one is saying their military lacked any merit whatsoever. But the very act that this military embroiled itself in a war against the USA while still in a conflict with the USSR and the British Empire is the biggest failing of all. Their lack of fuel and inability to replace their lost equipment was not inevitable or unsolvable either, but also came from their enormously consequential failings with regard to logistics and grand strategy. Finally, the desperate and even fanatical fight they put up in 44 and 45 is also arguably not a point of praise, since it resulted in wholly unnecessary destruction and death. I've seen something like how the Germans lost more KIAs after July 22 44, or even in 45 alone, than it did in the whole rest of the war. It accomplished NOTHING - if the generals had overthrown Hitler or convinced him to sue for peace, the political end result would likely have resembled May 1945. Yes the Russians would have committed their violations against women, and there would have been the civilian losses associated with the expulsions from the eastern territories, but that was what Germany got ANYWAY, and surrenderig sooner would have caused far fewer military deaths, fewer civilians killed and resources ruined by Allied bombing, etc.

@JRobbySh

4 жыл бұрын

Balanced view. On three occasions they were able to tie us up in knots for extended periods of time despite their scarcity of men and material. Patton’s dash across France was the only time I can see that we compared favorably with the Germans. That was like 1940 in reverse.

it is unbelieveble this level of this discussion. This is really in university? Not in Finnish university i hope.

@toddfromwork8931

3 күн бұрын

Please ignore everything from America. This place is a pox upon the Earth.

These lectures never have good audio, thats the 13th law of physics 😅

blurry

RIP Dr Megargee.

@OceanHedgehog

2 жыл бұрын

So sad, he died pretty young

@toddfromwork8931

3 күн бұрын

@@OceanHedgehog 💉

"Our defeated enemies were totally incompetent, but also this was our greatest victory."

I wonder why people even listen to new research if the main objective is to stay firm in their beliefs. Why don't they just read LIddel Hart and Churchill again? If we never question anything, we are at a mental state before Sokrates.

@brucec43

8 жыл бұрын

+aon10003 Sometimes it's BS. Sometimes its conclusions are merely those that they know may get published. Nobody wants to read the 10th book with the same conclusions. There are no more careerist,, non-independent, and political generals today than in the USA.

Look at Afghanistan: there were no one to stab the military in the back this time. This time they knew better, everyone claimed that they supported the soldier even if they didn't support the war. And what happened? More spectacular failure. The naysayer were not traitors, they were there to prevent you from making the gravest mistakes.

Amazing how manu us academics struggle with english

I certainly like these lecturers who portray these *murderous, thieving, lying, stupid followers,* along the lines of what they really were all about and how utterly pathetic their ways and ideas actually were, starting at the top where the most blame should be laid.

@JRobbySh

4 жыл бұрын

All of this adjectives can be assigned to the Soviet regime. Which reminds me: why does he ascribe Nazi views about Jews to the thinking of the High Command unless it was the general view among the elites of every European state?

@250txc

4 жыл бұрын

@@JRobbySh To some degree maybe on the adjectives, but saying every European state held the same view on Jews is not even remotely correct when you consider all the countries the GR killer invaded. Unless they were as stupid as the entire GR nation.

@fruitingfungi

9 ай бұрын

​@@JRobbyShjust a guess but he's using the phrase "NAZI views" cause he's talking about NAZIS. Quite both "sidesing" the NAZIs.

I will show you 100 mistakes in Allies General staff but they still won

@keithdavis773

2 жыл бұрын

Because they had (a) more men (b) more economic strength (c) relatively sensible planning as compared to the German, such as not taking on the British Empire, USSR and the USA all at once. Germany hadn't won a war since 1870. K

@lallen4999

2 жыл бұрын

The angels of God were seen over the Allies!!!

@nationalist464

2 жыл бұрын

@@keithdavis773 What is meaning of sensible planning? Germany had better planners but one man has all power who didn't listen to them, Allies also faced failures Their advanced bogged down 2 or 3 times and had serous losses but When Germany lost it couldn't replace the losses , America had lost 3 wars since WW2 , and tell me a single a country which never lost a war , Germany came so close to winning even when odds were against them

@youraveragescotsman7119

2 жыл бұрын

@@nationalist464 Germany DID NOT have better planners. Their planners ignored logistics in many of their operations (Looking at you, ROMMEL) and completely overstretched their frontlines. Had they been up against armies that were prepared, they'd have lost due to just that, overextension. A prepared Army would have exploited it. And no. Germany never came even close to winning.

@nationalist464

2 жыл бұрын

@@youraveragescotsman7119 Yes Germany didn't have Sensible planners 😂😂, Even If you understand a little about Strategy you will know their worth , Guderian Manstein Rommel , All were fools according to you, Manstein plans that defeated France and BEF , Do you know worth of that plan , Guderian who just changed the warfare, Ans Rommel principles were speed , surprise and deception, Yes his lines were overstretched , So ? You will point out one mistake and say he was fool, Wow amazing man , Go and ask Churchill, Montgomery who himself fought with him ,I am really laughing explain this to you , Really innocent man you are

Amateurs speak of strategy and tactics. Professionals speak of logistics. One can make a fairly good argument that German generals were the best field commanders. But in terms of the essentials, they were amateurs. The Germans couldn't clothe or feed their troops in Russia. The primary form of transport of supplies was with horses. I remember watching a story about the German drive on Stalingrad. I remember one old German soldier talking about how they got some camels!! Fucking camels!!! Allied forces moved by truck. Russian forces moved with American supplied trucks. The Germans were doomed to lose.

@lawrencewright2816

8 жыл бұрын

+hconnell171 I cannot think of a major war where logistics did not play the critical part. For example, in the American Civil War, one could make a good argument that the confederacy had the most capable field commanders. But the Union army had far better logistics.

@lawrencewright2816

8 жыл бұрын

+hconnell171 Very true. My point is that with superior logistics, a merely adequate commander will defeat a superior commander. British, Russian, and American commanders were not bad commanders. There were merely not as good as the Germans. Same comparison applies to Union and Confederate commanders. The Germans still lost. The Confederacy still lost.

@lawrencewright2816

8 жыл бұрын

+hconnell171 Hypothesize, if you will, two opposing soldiers who each have to travel 100 miles to engage each other. The superbly trained soldier needs to walk 100 miles, and arrives exhausted with an empty belly. The merely adequately trained soldier is well fed and is delivered to the engagement point by motorized transport. That metaphor basically sums up the German campaign in both Russia and against the Western Allies. Russian soldiers had American food and American trucks. The Germans lost.

@lawrencewright2816

8 жыл бұрын

+hconnell171 ..Well, in the case of the Germans, they were not very effective at dodging our hits. Allied intelligence had deeply penetrated the German intelligence apparatus. The British had Ultra. My essential point is, that notwithstanding a very arguable superiority in the quality of German field commanders and in the training of the soldiers, their opponents were superior where it mattered most. In terms of communications, logistics, and intelligence, the Germans were clearly outmatched. Their only real chance at winning the war was in choking off Allied supplies with the U Boat. They very nearly succeeded. But the Royal Navy had Ultra.

@stonecoldjaneausten

8 жыл бұрын

+Lawrence Wright Horses have their place - in summer in Europe they're quite useful, as grass is plentiful and they don't require fuel. In harsh conditions and when fodder has to be supplied to them, they lose that utility.

Would Russia have survived without the material help from the allies ?

@rbaxter286

Ай бұрын

The ALLIES won the war, and that includes Communist Russia. NOBODY did it by themselves.

Why do these experts vary so much on Germany's War , For all the dysfunction , economic , Oil gas and so many other material shortages ( and no real Navy) along with the diversion to Nazi efforts to genocide and allies that were duplicative and a hinderance ,most say Germany came extremely close to winning the War? Its scary to think what could have happened. A lot of scholars say the genocide would not have happened and really began when the possibility of losing the War ( during the Wansee Conference). I worked with a Man from Berlin who was ordered into the Hitler youth but the War ended, He said after the defeat of France even the public that considered themselves Nazi's didnt want more War ,

I know nothing!

The Ones Who Remember: Second Generation Voices of the Holocaust. As the Holocaust survivors among us become more frail and pass on, we must ensure their stories and legacies continue. We must keep our promises to them. a great-granddaughter of Holocaust survivor - Some of my Dad Fred White's family members died in the Holocaust in Europe

@toddfromwork8931

3 күн бұрын

The what?

According to these historians, Japan only decided to attack Pearl Harbor if Hitler promised (for what THAT was worth) to declare war on the US, to divide US troops and industry. So Hitler’s promise was a PREREQUISITE for the Japanese attack, not a consequence. All 3 eminent historians on this panel agree, according this fellow. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerhard_Weinberg, at a George C. Marshall Foundation lecture. kzread.info/dash/bejne/aW1_t5tyZ9Cfn5c.html. WW2: Myths, Misconceptions, and Surprises

What about all the lies

yes typical germam denial from my grandfather

oi

The sound quality became worse and worse after about 21 minutes so I just had to turn it off. Too bad you tube can't get it together to fix their terribly shitty production quality. It is so bad it makes their material unlistenable. Not even close to the stuff the networks produce. Definitely not ready for prime time. best Bruce Peek `

It is amazing how people think the US was so powerful at the start of WW2. The US wasn't that powerful, nor did it prove itself well in WW1. Apart from the US navy, the Germans really did not have much to fear of the US in 1941, militarily speaking. As far as industrially, the U-boat war would have limited that if successful from the German point of view. To many think of the US in 1941 as being as powerful as it is now or in 1945.

@hedgehog3180

6 жыл бұрын

Eh, the US might not have had the same military power at the start of the war as it had towards the end but it had the same industrial capacity and that's what should have worried anyone. For the Germans to think that their submarines would be able to neutralize it is incredibly arrogant and a sign of incompetence.

@tashahatzidakis5680

3 жыл бұрын

USA were in an era of being an isolationist They didn’t want to be involved in another European war, and the Great Depression was happening

@Peorhum

3 жыл бұрын

@@hedgehog3180 They knew that a hand full of submarines could not neutralize the US but with convoy defenses or lack of on the US east coast it was a weakness so they exploited it. Germany declared war on the US more in support of Japan. That said at the time they were running pretty high on their own successes so likely thought USSR could be defeated then Britain then terms could be made with the US.

@Peorhum

3 жыл бұрын

@@tashahatzidakis5680 True enough...but US was isolationist only in regards to Europe. They were more then willing to get involved in conflicts outside of Europe. Nothing ends depressions better then a nice war and they were even considering invading Canada to help end the depression.