His enthusiasm is apparent and contagious and he has a way to keep the audience's attention. I enjoy listening to him and I also enjoy Jonathan Parshall.
@@tso1157 He actually used to hit me and demand money from me. Nah just kidding. Never met the guy. I just like DRAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! ;) Good lecture though. :)
I can't get over the fact that some the military maps in this presentation, starting from the one shown at 9:10, use Comic Sans MS as their font. Talking about warcrimes....
i guess im asking randomly but does any of you know of a trick to log back into an Instagram account..? I somehow forgot my account password. I would appreciate any tricks you can offer me
@Nelson Briar i really appreciate your reply. I got to the site through google and im trying it out now. Seems to take quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.
The Wehrmacht was not heavily mechanized for the invasion of Poland. Almost 100% of their field artillery was horse drawn and 80% of the infantry marched into battle. 3 million horses were used by the Germans in Operation Barbarossa.
Comparatively speaking, they were much *more* mechanized after nicking those Czech tanks - I could see that, but they relied on "horse-power" for the rest of the war. Until they had to start eating the horses. You'd never know it from the war-time propaganda, though. Hell, even the US at first wasn't totally mechanized.
The map shown at 5:00 does not reflect the area occupied by Germany and its allies in early 1944. By that time its armed forces had been defeated in north Africa, Sicily had been liberated along with southern and central Italy. Eastern and central Ukraine had been liberated. The map would appear to reflect the position one year earlier, possibly in February 1943 just after the Sixth army had surrendered at Stalingrad as the encircled army is not shown on the map.
@@paulstewart6293 so what? by 1944 the occupied space had dramatically shrunk. the frontlines were much closer to the core, combined with reasonable german fear of a total collapse.
Someone looking a lot like Dr. Citino helped me w directions during my most recent visit to the D-Day Museum. I will forever wonder if that was him being all incognito.
They are more lectures about our grandfather's in the foreign world than we have here, "at home". Amazing stuff, Mr Citino. Definitely gonna buy your book(s).
You are wrong about the Me-262. It couldn't have been built any faster than it was. There was a massive shortage of materiel needed for the engines. It was the engines, not the wing racks that delayed it's introduction. They had to wait until engines that wouldn't explode after operating for just a few hours were available, and even after it was deployed, the engines they got could only run for about 200 hours before needing to be replaced. Just like the M-26 Pershing tank. It was developed and deployed as fast as it could. It was just too late to make a difference. Debate on how to use a weapon doesn't delay the engineering challenge of building it.
The real issue of the ME-262 was that it was available early as a fighter but Hitler decided is should be a bomber so that took a total redesign. That is what happens when a corporal is in charge....lol So it came too late. Also, the resources that went into it could have been better used making more ME 109's and more tanks.
The D-Day breakout by Paton resembled the early German breakouts. Germany's strong WW1 lines after D-Day that only had to be broken in 1 place, have the supply lines and encircle those WW1 lines with armor, followed by troops. They had 2 choices, stay under cover and fight to the end like the Japanese at the end of their war or get out of the cover to attack the breakout supply lines or retreat before being surrounded. The same thing was tried in WW1 and Civil War, but troops and supply transport by horse were too slow to do the deep dive beyond an area reserve could patch, with force or armor or artillery with manageable risk of supplies not being cut. Battle of the Bulge is a failed case of a deep dive with too many opposing troops available to patch the lines and threatening supply lines.
the dday breakout was assisted by the soviets operation bagration, which resulted in over 700 000 german casualties alone, (which was more than the entire german forces the allies faced )
Germany did not conquer Norway in 30 days. Norway held the Germans for 62 days, from april 9. to june 10. 1940, making it the occupied country that withstood a German invasion for the longest time before succumbing.
@@stevencooper4422 although Dr. Citino is a military historian of the past, I would love to hear his analysis of the current Armed-Conflict in Ukraine.
5:00 That map CERTAINLY is not "early 1944". Sicily and North Africa are blue - so, this is well before the fall of Tunis (which was in May 1943). We see a German advance deep into the Caucasus - so I would guesstimate late 1942.
The amphibious tanks that the Allies developed for D-Day was in direct response to the what if they encounter panzers on the beach and of course as bunker busters where applicable.
These are very interesting lectures, and I know they lecture to the military war college. But we haven’t won a war really since in the World War II so what really good as always when you have politicians who keep getting us into these no-win wars?
If Luxembourg had been able to mobilize it’s reserves they may have been able to stop the whole Manstein plan through the Ardennes cause both of those guys were tough as hell
@@abbevogler2619hmm mabe your right. I always thought the phoney war ended on May 10, 1940 when the Germans launched fall gelb , the invasion of the low countries and France
@@dario9561 I meant roughly speaking. The Westfeldzug started on May 10, prepared from October 1939 onwards of course. The bad weatherforecast (and Hitlers birthdayparty?) let them wait. Interesting: in WWI the Netherlands were not occupied but Belgium only, that had been quite risky for the German point of view.
Contrary to popular belief, when Germany invaded, the Soviets had more tanks than the rest of the world combined and the Germans had... 750,000 horses. And when the US started sending billions of tons of material through Lend-Lease, paired with an almost endless Soviet source of human personnel, the Germans may have been mighty warriors, it's a wonder how they could last so long.
@@terrysmith9362 He he, nothing to do with the movies, just a slightly wicked sense of humor, nothing to worry about. Glad to see you got the essence of the message.
I love people who like to argue with a lecturer who has access to archives and official documents while the UA-cam commentators have access to...yep, that's right, fuck all. Somebody else's book or UA-cam movie. Not the actual archives, or interviews or documents. Robert Citino may not word things exactly how you want it worded but the guy has studied, visited and had access to more stuff than any of you have actually read yourself.
It's not only about access to archives, but about interpretation. Understanding the mindset of the time is very important; some historians forget that.
As much as I admire Dr. Citino' scholarship he made a serious mistake here [35:35]. He said that 80-85 percent of German "military resources" were committed to the Ostkrieg. This is manifestly incorrect. Now it is true that something like 85 percent of German military MANPOWER was committed to the Ostkrieg. But military RESOURCES is quite another matter. Manpower is only one element of military resources. If manpower was the only element, China would have won the War. Manpower of course is a vital part of war, but only one part. In fact, over half of German INDUSTRIAL output was committed to the war in the West. This lack of supply and support is part of the reason the Deutsche I Ostheer was defeated.
Not criticizing by any means but it was called operation "fall blau" , also the real reason y the 6th army fell and lost was lack of food, and the crazy part is each soldier was only allowed to get 300to500 calories a day of bread n really anything they could cook...the sad part about that is the average soldier is supposed to have 2600 calories a day and with only having 500 calories a day your looking at losing 2/3 pounds a week and for 71days most soldiers lost roughly 20 pounds by 71 days and if Hitler would have had them retreat along with the northern army and kept the southern army at the same spot its at and just made the line smaller im almost 100% sure Germany could have held out alot more
@Joe Montgomery. You've written a tautology and haven't capitalized a proper name. Fall Blau means Case (or Operation) Blue. Similarly, Fall Barbarossa or Operation Barbarossa, not Operation Fall Barbarossa.
@@microchip9982 food had already started to be a problem earlier, but let's look at supplies in general. The logistics of the 6th army were already severe before they had even entered the city. Many pop historians and tv documentaries pretend as if the battle of Stalingrad begins with Paulus invading the city, but the truth is that there had been a tiresome campaign with lots of battles a month prior to that. Food, oil, replacement parts, ammunition, were already stretched thin and logistics couldn't keep up. Once encircled in Stalingrad, for whatever reason, the Germans had decided that they would only start asking for food (via the airdrops) after they had slaughtered their last horses. I get it because horses needed food as well if they were alive, but they were also the majority of the whermacht's transportation abilities. Fall Blau was an absolute mess.
2600 calories a day is a severe weight loss diet for a soldier in combat. I have a moderately active job and I eat around that (average male, not a soldier, despite my best efforts). A WW2 solider in front line combat, in winter, and losing (adding to stress), would need north of 4k calories to maintain reasonable performance. Today, the average American soldier gets about 3500kcal per day from field rations, and they are nowhere near as active as an infantryman in Stalingrad was
U boat threat was under control by early 1941, the end of the first "happy time". It resurged after US joined the war with the "second happy time" as US admiral King refused to follow successful British protocols that lead to massively increased merchant losses until they were bought under control for the second time, as he said.
I understand that the 2nd ""happy time" was allowed simply by US. port cities refusing to operates under blackout protocols, like you said the British had been. This allowed for all our ships leaving port to be targeted remarkably easily as all those ships were all silhouetted against all those city lights.
Sinkings of merchant ships remained a very serious problem until into 1943 when every aspect of the weapons used by the allies from naval vessels and aircraft to improved depth charges started to take a heavy toll on U boats so much so Hitler decided to reduce operations involving U boats.
I think if Germany had allied with Turkey and gone that route into the Soviet Union, grabbing their primary oil sources and potentially putting a real hurt on lend/lease (making oil the primary resource over trucks and equipment), the outcome may have been much different…. A nice presentation and overview, if very basic, of the European war.
@ Robert Rishel The Turks weren't stupid. They went in with Germany in the Great War, and it cost them their empire. Such as it was. In any case, operating from Turkey into the Caucasus was difficult. Covered in mountains the terrain was a nightmare. Few valleys to advance through, which makes any approach, over several hundred miles, predictable to the Soviets not to mention favourable defensive terrain. Baku was on the opposite side of the Caucasus on the Caspian Sea. There was no way to 'grab it'.
you seem to be oblivious of the combined british-soviet forces that secured iran in aug1941 (a couple months after germany invaded ussr), this actually secured that corridor into the soviet union where a rail line was built for lend lease supply the germans had their eyes on the oil fields in the middle east, including the anglo iranian oil company (the forerunner to BP) as their refinery in iran was the largest in the world at that time ... basically, the afrika campaign was given priority by both allies and axis powers due to a number of interests, not simply urelated to oil but it cetainly played a part.. with respect to turkey, many other nations in the region that qwere formed post ww1 were not exactly happy with the former ottoman turks as they were viewed as occupiers just as surely as the british/french were post ww1 .. different groups within the regions supported differnt countries
@@umenhuman7573 I'm not oblivious to anything. I'm pretty sure I have more qualifications in this arena than you do. The Iranians offered no resistance. Comparing Iran to the Soviet Union in military terms is ridiculous. As is your claim the "African" campaign was given priority.
@@DannyBoy777777 i was talking to the op your appeal to authority and your distorted interpretation of whatare completely irrelevant as an aside, since you brought it up... its rediculous to claim the iranians offered "no resistance", it would be more accurate to say they were simply overwhelmed and therefore put up little resistance my statement of fact regarding both allies and axis placing priority on afrikan campaigns is derived from declassified documents, ypou might try reading more of them and try to keep things in context (as you';ve demonstrated in your interpretation you seem to be prpone to errors in that regard)
@@umenhuman7573 Load of bullshit. Aside from the grammatically indecipherable paragraphs at the top, your claim that the Axis prioritised North Africa marks you out as a giant ignoramus. Four German divisions were in Africa in June 1941, and barely 10 by 1943. Over 200 were on the Eastern Front. You have no idea what you're talking about. The Soviet-British force suffered less than 60 fatalities. Like I said, organised resistance was practically zero. Idiot.
Judging by the other lectures of this series, including the ones from the other professors, the prepared speeches are really just a narrative of the invasion process. Any meaty info is left up to the audience to ask for during the Q&A, which probably explains why it takes up almost half the video. After all, its an auditorium on a cruiseship, not a university lecture hall.
First of all he said it’s what the college teaches. Also Ukraine is pretty local and contained compared to WW2. I don’t think that’s the type of “large scale industrial warfare” he’s referring to.
@@DannyBoy777777 Polish soldiers advanced east along the former Prussian Eastern Railway to railroad crossroads 7 kilometres from the town of Chojnice (Konitz) where elements of the Polish cavalry charged and dispersed a German infantry battalion. Machine gun fire from German armoured cars that appeared from a nearby forest forced the Poles to retreat. However, the attack successfully delayed the German advance, allowing the Polish 1st Rifle battalion and Czersk Operational Group to withdraw safely. I do not see "charged tanks" anywhere in that.
@@DannyBoy777777 I copied it. It is a long time since Wiki was unreliable. Today actual experts from all over will correct mistakes. Only on fringe topics is it inaccurate. So there.
Poland was not Blitzkrieg. The Soviets attacked us from The Black 17th September. There were 1600+ skirmishes and battles between the Polish Army and Wehrmacht in 5 weeks.
They actually had a pretty good railway system it was just overwhelmed especially in Russia as they had to change every mile to German gauge before it would be useable.
@@terimcrae4042 Earlier this year I read Yaron Pasher's "Holocaust versus Wehrmacht: How Hitler's 'Final Solution' Undermined the German War Effort", a painful subject, but a book I recommend.
"industrial scale warfare is unlikely to be fought" (in the future). Yet here we are in 2024 trying to supply arms to Ukraine for an industrial scale war. Not a huge one, but we're still struggling.
Fundamentally German organizational psychology is very different from American organizational psychology - Germans loathe bureaucracy and believe in self-sufficiency; that a small elite team can out-perform a large "unprofessional" mass. If you live in Germany you will see this in action at every level of society - German businesses encourage and rely on lower level personnel taking initiative and "handling" things on their own. Americans - despite saying they enshrine initiative - are far more hierarchical than Germans. And, of course, saying something and doing something are two different things. Now - this is not to say that Germans do not develop and appreciate organization and what they term "order;" but Germans are far more respectful of the benefits of order. Germans are not Americans, not French or British and certainly not Italians.
Large scale industrial war won't be fought in the near future...perhaps the US army war college should have emailed a course program to Vlad the invader.
It wouldn’t beg to differ. The speaker was scarily correct. Did you not hear him comparing Hitler’s use of the ethnic, pro-annex Germans in the Sudetenland to Putin’s potential to do the exact thing in countries containing pro-annex Russians? His analogy/prediction was spot on…
Bro repeating some tired old tropes about Germans being fast & fully motorized in the polish campaign (20% were in 1939) and Poles on horseback (_both_ armies relied on horses for logistics & scouting)
Guderian did not sit on People’s Courts. What he did -- preside over Honor Courts that discharged army officers so they could be tried by the political People’s Courts led by the repulsive Roland Freisler - was bad enough without adding to it.
Germany, pretty good at border warfare when they got first bite at the apple. Sustainable resources and logistics? Came on like cheap speed, then massive fade. The Russians killed them. Russia's long game fueled by US Lendlease and the certain knowledge it was a war of extermination.
41:00 I believe Stalin refused to sign the Geneva Convention (Second*) regarding the treatment of POWs so the Germans basically had no reason to treat Soviet POWs with any respect at all.
If you're on a deserted island which is not part of any jurisdiction and hence no laws apply, you could kill people without breaking any laws. But what you're doing is still murder, even if it doesn't technically break any laws. Treaties exist to enforce established conventions. They don't create them. If you're seriously trying to justify the vicious treatment of Soviet POWs (that resulted in some 3 million deaths) with the argument that there was no treaty protecting them, something's seriously wrong with your moral compass.
The Soviet Union signed the Geneva Convention on 27th June 1929. There are podcasts on YT which German prisoners said that Russian soldier's rations were not much better than what they received .The Russian campaign was characterised by the most heinous atrocities on the part of the Germans, which were a feature of what went on in other occupied territories from the Balkans the Channel Islands. Massacres of US,Canadian and British troops which became known was an invitation to allied soldiers to reciprocate such behaviour and they did.
@@lawrencebrown3677 thats too simple. Atrocities from German troops to Western allies did happen but were far from the norm. To say that only because of these instances allied troops commit crimes as well is not correctly portaiting the situation. And btw, war crimes do always happen in war. Their appearance in themselves is nothing unusual. The crucial point is: how are they dealt with by the corresponding military organisation.
The Wehrmacht in 1939 was not carried on wheels and tracks, he has that entirely wrong, only 20%, the tip of the spear, was motorised, the other 80% trudged along behind on foot and hoof, most of the German artillery & logistics was horsedrawn. The allied armies in Belgium were nto encircled, they withdrew back into France and ended up in a pocket on the coast around Dunkirk. Sorry, but this guy has so much of the details outright wrong, which makes me question how good he is on the bigger picture too.
How typical that an American historian should cover the events of 1940 without a single mention of The Battle of Britain, the largest aerial battle in history. Had the RAF lost the battle the Normandy landings would not have been possible. Why no mention of such a crucial victory?
Had that phase of the war been won the Germans, they could have bombed UK industry into rubble as there would have been no air defense left. No doubt about it.
If I understand the title/content of the presentation correctly- it's more about how the Nazi's operated in Europe once they took over and how they took over; not necessarily about the battles and so forth. Since the Nazis lost the Battle of Britain (and thus did not take over Britain) I think that's why it isn't mentioned. As an American myself I am very well aware of the Battle of Britain and the Legendary bravery of RAF pilots. Did you know there were 3 "Eagle Squadrons" of American volunteers who flew with the RAF during the Battle of Britain? Once the USA was "officially" at war they were folded into the regular US military- but even then most of the Eagle Squadron pilots still wore their RAF Wings on their American uniforms. ;)
@lorddaver3019 The Battle of Britain was NOT the largest air battle in history. It was vitally important, but not the largest. That was the strategic bombing campaign over Germany.
If the enemy has Panzer ones in Panzer twos and you’re on horseback dismounting with antitank rifle’s Then You better rethink your strategy! Not only that it was the Soviets coming in the back door that put an end to the Polish campaign.... we don’t want to put too much emphasis on that now do we??? But the unknown secret of bewagenkrieg was the luftwaffe Who in the early days get no credit whatsoever possibly even more important than the Panzer units although it was a combined arms effort either way
True, Germany ran Europe as early as Summer 1940. Too bad they only had it for about two years. The Empire Ceaser made had it for about 400 years. You can barely begin to actually build and control an empire in 2 years.
That's why the Brits, Russians, and Americans were so obdurate. They knew that if the Germans had time to consolidate and Germanicise the area under their control, the job would be immensely more difficult.
@@glorgau The Germans did not attempt to Gernmanize the conquered people. The goal was to murder them and replace them with Germans. Please read about Generalplan Ost.
Alone in combat but with the same materiel support the US provided? Definitely. If the US was totally uninvolved? Maybe not. Also it’s well known that the German atomic bomb project was never very far in development and was disorganized and piecemeal. Also they never were able to get anywhere near the heavy water needed because of allied sabotage in Norway. They might have gotten there eventually but it would have taken years. The USSR’s atomic bomb de elopement was sped up by the theft of US atomic secrets so it’s hard to tell how long it would have taken them without that. If you’re interested there are transcripts of German nuclear scientists who were detained together and unknowingly recorded after the war. They were never close.
Paulus was in 1937 Russian war games and told the OKW that the Wehrmacht couldn’t defeat the Red Army then why would it fall on deaf ears ? The German hubris defeated themselves
Geez I would like presenter to learn to modulate their voice better. It varies from soft to loud without reasons maybe he learned to do that to keep audience up but actually you have to time it up with your narrative and not do it constantly random.
Germany used 3 million horses and miles in World War 2. They used them in Poland, Russia, and elsewhere, largely to pull equipment. The primitive army of Germany was easily defeated by the USA thousands of miles from our homeland. It is estimated the United States could have defeated an army 10× as powerful as the Nazis during World War 2. The United States Army considered the Germans a pathetic joke.
@@terrysmith9362 Seriously absolutely moronic. 16 million served in the Wehrmacht does this guy actually believe that the USA alone could defeat an army that had 160 million men serve in 10 years.
Utter insanity. 10x the German army would be easily 100,000,000 soldiers. The U.S. Army would likely lose that fight if the 100,000,000 were Neolithic hunter-gatherers with spears, and the German Army was most certainly not Neolithic. If you look into actual history you would quite quickly come to the understanding that far from the U.S. Army deriding the Germans, the 𝘎𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘴 actually considered 𝘜.𝘚. soldiers to be comically amateurish in their battlefield conduct.
Rob Citino is a national treasure. I can listen to his lectures...forever.
He’s the best.
His enthusiasm is apparent and contagious and he has a way to keep the audience's attention. I enjoy listening to him and I also enjoy Jonathan Parshall.
I would love to have taken a class with this man in college
I took many, best prof I ever had.
@@tso1157 He actually used to hit me and demand money from me.
Nah just kidding. Never met the guy. I just like DRAMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
;)
Good lecture though. :)
I could listen to this guy all day. Love him
I can't get over the fact that some the military maps in this presentation, starting from the one shown at 9:10, use Comic Sans MS as their font. Talking about warcrimes....
You've gotta take the edge off an atrocity somehow.
Always a pleasure listening to Dr. Citino. Assurance of a lively and enlightening presentation.
i guess im asking randomly but does any of you know of a trick to log back into an Instagram account..?
I somehow forgot my account password. I would appreciate any tricks you can offer me
@Adriel Bode Instablaster =)
@@adrielbode6995 I haven't a clue. I'm not on Instagram.
@Nelson Briar i really appreciate your reply. I got to the site through google and im trying it out now.
Seems to take quite some time so I will get back to you later with my results.
@Nelson Briar It worked and I finally got access to my account again. I am so happy!
Thank you so much, you saved my ass!
Always a good day when watching a brand new Citino lecture
this is from obama years lol
Not new genius.
@@unknowable2432 we didn’t have access to it until now so it’s a new release
@@kickassandchewbubblegum639 It would be pretty hard for it to be otherwise anytime around any WW2 70th anniversary.
The Wehrmacht was not heavily mechanized for the invasion of Poland. Almost 100% of their field artillery was horse drawn and 80% of the infantry marched into battle. 3 million horses were used by the Germans in Operation Barbarossa.
Comparatively speaking, they were much *more* mechanized after nicking those Czech tanks - I could see that, but they relied on "horse-power" for the rest of the war. Until they had to start eating the horses. You'd never know it from the war-time propaganda, though. Hell, even the US at first wasn't totally mechanized.
As David Stahel said, the tanks were like the tip of the spear and the infantry is the shaft.
@@fuzzydunlop7928 only fully mechanized army in 1939/40 was BEF, everybody else had larger or smaller mounted elements.
@@davidsabillon5182 there is a good joke in there somewhere
Agreed; the Wehrmacht was an army of two half’s. A small mechanised core (roughly 10%) and hundreds of line infantry divisions that walked.
The map shown at 5:00 does not reflect the area occupied by Germany and its allies in early 1944. By that time its armed forces had been defeated in north Africa, Sicily had been liberated along with southern and central Italy. Eastern and central Ukraine had been liberated. The map would appear to reflect the position one year earlier, possibly in February 1943 just after the Sixth army had surrendered at Stalingrad as the encircled army is not shown on the map.
Interesting. So what?
@@paulstewart6293 so what? by 1944 the occupied space had dramatically shrunk. the frontlines were much closer to the core, combined with reasonable german fear of a total collapse.
"First few years of the war" 5:48
Watch the video
That map looks like somewhere in the autumn of 1942, the furthest extent of German Army influence eastwards.
I was randomly watching this video for my WW2 interest and suddenly I hear this guy predict war in Ukraine. Wow.
I have read his excellent books about WW2 - they are well worth your time.
Do you have a profession in the military
@@EliasKaganDo you always ask people to substantiate their recommendations?
@@TheNelster72That was not the intention with the question. Good try, though.
Someone looking a lot like Dr. Citino helped me w directions during my most recent visit to the D-Day Museum. I will forever wonder if that was him being all incognito.
Did he have two copies of one map, with the arrows going in opposite directions?
Excellent lecture.
Very good, thank you.
This is great.
New Citino!
Prophetic. My jaw dropped when he called Putin a Mussolini.
Putin is winning. Ukraine can't win.
1:05:50
Prophetic? It's only like year 24 of his rule
@@joseornelas1718this was in 2014, just a few months after russia siezed Crimea. So not surprising he said that, also only year 15 of putins reign
Putolini.
They are more lectures about our grandfather's in the foreign world than we have here, "at home". Amazing stuff, Mr Citino. Definitely gonna buy your book(s).
You are wrong about the Me-262. It couldn't have been built any faster than it was. There was a massive shortage of materiel needed for the engines. It was the engines, not the wing racks that delayed it's introduction. They had to wait until engines that wouldn't explode after operating for just a few hours were available, and even after it was deployed, the engines they got could only run for about 200 hours before needing to be replaced.
Just like the M-26 Pershing tank. It was developed and deployed as fast as it could. It was just too late to make a difference.
Debate on how to use a weapon doesn't delay the engineering challenge of building it.
The real issue of the ME-262 was that it was available early as a fighter but Hitler decided is should be a bomber so that took a total redesign. That is what happens when a corporal is in charge....lol So it came too late. Also, the resources that went into it could have been better used making more ME 109's and more tanks.
I’m glad to know citino keeps Britney on his mind
This guy is a amazing professor i all my teachers were like him
A Citino lecture! 🍿🍿🍿🧐
Very enjoyable
Always Factual and intertaining
The D-Day breakout by Paton resembled the early German breakouts. Germany's strong WW1 lines after D-Day that only had to be broken in 1 place, have the supply lines and encircle those WW1 lines with armor, followed by troops. They had 2 choices, stay under cover and fight to the end like the Japanese at the end of their war or get out of the cover to attack the breakout supply lines or retreat before being surrounded. The same thing was tried in WW1 and Civil War, but troops and supply transport by horse were too slow to do the deep dive beyond an area reserve could patch, with force or armor or artillery with manageable risk of supplies not being cut. Battle of the Bulge is a failed case of a deep dive with too many opposing troops available to patch the lines and threatening supply lines.
the dday breakout was assisted by the soviets operation bagration, which resulted in over 700 000 german casualties alone, (which was more than the entire german forces the allies faced )
Germany did not conquer Norway in 30 days. Norway held the Germans for 62 days, from april 9. to june 10. 1940, making it the occupied country that withstood a German invasion for the longest time before succumbing.
Cintino is one of the foremost authorities on German WW2 history and order of battle.
Watching this in 2022. Care to reassess them predictions?
This lecture was recorded in 2014.
Incredibly prescient after the 50 minute mark.
@@stevencooper4422 although Dr. Citino is a military historian of the past, I would love to hear his analysis of the current Armed-Conflict in Ukraine.
5:00 That map CERTAINLY is not "early 1944".
Sicily and North Africa are blue - so, this is well before the fall of Tunis (which was in May 1943).
We see a German advance deep into the Caucasus - so I would guesstimate late 1942.
The amphibious tanks that the Allies developed for D-Day was in direct response to the what if they encounter panzers on the beach and of course as bunker busters where applicable.
His prediction about major players in future wars being non-state actors didn't age well, but overall I enjoyed this talk.
It aged well from 1991-2022, i don't blame him for thinking that, we all did too
@@alexs_toy_barn Peter Zeihan didn’t think that way.
These are very interesting lectures, and I know they lecture to the military war college. But we haven’t won a war really since in the World War II so what really good as always when you have politicians who keep getting us into these no-win wars?
Bewegungskrieg not Blitzkrieg!
Salutations my old docent!
WW2 cruise? That sounds cool
@51:00 Oh mister Citino, the US army war college was so wrong about that one.
Everyone forgets the mighty Luxembourg.
I know right? ^^
"Luxembourg is joke to you?!"
@@Torgo1001 Yes
If Luxembourg had been able to mobilize it’s reserves they may have been able to stop the whole Manstein plan through the Ardennes cause both of those guys were tough as hell
The begins at 2:25
10:30 ff. SORRY: The invasion of Norway was in April 1941 and not 1940.
No, it was in April of 1940.
@@dario9561 Ten times sorry, you're right, it was April 1940, at the end of "La drôle de guerre".
@@abbevogler2619hmm mabe your right. I always thought the phoney war ended on May 10, 1940 when the Germans launched fall gelb , the invasion of the low countries and France
@@dario9561 I meant roughly speaking. The Westfeldzug started on May 10, prepared from October 1939 onwards of course. The bad weatherforecast (and Hitlers birthdayparty?) let them wait. Interesting: in WWI the Netherlands were not occupied but Belgium only, that had been quite risky for the German point of view.
"The Iron Dream" ~ by Norman Spinrad
He was when he said you just don't know what will happen in 5 years!
He had me at WW2 Cruise……
Contrary to popular belief, when Germany invaded, the Soviets had more tanks than the rest of the world combined and the Germans had... 750,000 horses. And when the US started sending billions of tons of material through Lend-Lease, paired with an almost endless Soviet source of human personnel, the Germans may have been mighty warriors, it's a wonder how they could last so long.
The tanks were old and obsolete.
Yea Russia had more than tanks than the rest of the world combined in the late 30’s, 40-41 but only 3 of them worked.
Billions of tons??? Another Hollywood historian
@@terrysmith9362 He he, nothing to do with the movies, just a slightly wicked sense of humor, nothing to worry about. Glad to see you got the essence of the message.
@@rosesandsongs21 you seem to accept myth as acceptable to fact to butress a narrative
Gott mit uns
😂😂😂
I love people who like to argue with a lecturer who has access to archives and official documents while the UA-cam commentators have access to...yep, that's right, fuck all. Somebody else's book or UA-cam movie. Not the actual archives, or interviews or documents. Robert Citino may not word things exactly how you want it worded but the guy has studied, visited and had access to more stuff than any of you have actually read yourself.
You are right!
It's not only about access to archives, but about interpretation. Understanding the mindset of the time is very important; some historians forget that.
As much as I admire Dr. Citino' scholarship he made a serious mistake here [35:35]. He said that 80-85 percent of German "military resources" were committed to the Ostkrieg. This is manifestly incorrect. Now it is true that something like 85 percent of German military MANPOWER was committed to the Ostkrieg. But military RESOURCES is quite another matter. Manpower is only one element of military resources. If manpower was the only element, China would have won the War. Manpower of course is a vital part of war, but only one part. In fact, over half of German INDUSTRIAL output was committed to the war in the West. This lack of supply and support is part of the reason the Deutsche I Ostheer was defeated.
GOD BLess YOU ALL!!!!!!!
Not criticizing by any means but it was called operation "fall blau" , also the real reason y the 6th army fell and lost was lack of food, and the crazy part is each soldier was only allowed to get 300to500 calories a day of bread n really anything they could cook...the sad part about that is the average soldier is supposed to have 2600 calories a day and with only having 500 calories a day your looking at losing 2/3 pounds a week and for 71days most soldiers lost roughly 20 pounds by 71 days and if Hitler would have had them retreat along with the northern army and kept the southern army at the same spot its at and just made the line smaller im almost 100% sure Germany could have held out alot more
@Joe Montgomery. You've written a tautology and haven't capitalized a proper name. Fall Blau means Case (or Operation) Blue. Similarly, Fall Barbarossa or Operation Barbarossa, not Operation Fall Barbarossa.
The lack of food had absolutely nothing to do with the encirclement of the 6th army. It was the effect of their defeat, not the cause.
@@tlanimass952 That's like saying Mickey Mouse had nothing to do with the encirclement.
@@microchip9982 food had already started to be a problem earlier, but let's look at supplies in general. The logistics of the 6th army were already severe before they had even entered the city. Many pop historians and tv documentaries pretend as if the battle of Stalingrad begins with Paulus invading the city, but the truth is that there had been a tiresome campaign with lots of battles a month prior to that. Food, oil, replacement parts, ammunition, were already stretched thin and logistics couldn't keep up. Once encircled in Stalingrad, for whatever reason, the Germans had decided that they would only start asking for food (via the airdrops) after they had slaughtered their last horses. I get it because horses needed food as well if they were alive, but they were also the majority of the whermacht's transportation abilities. Fall Blau was an absolute mess.
2600 calories a day is a severe weight loss diet for a soldier in combat. I have a moderately active job and I eat around that (average male, not a soldier, despite my best efforts).
A WW2 solider in front line combat, in winter, and losing (adding to stress), would need north of 4k calories to maintain reasonable performance.
Today, the average American soldier gets about 3500kcal per day from field rations, and they are nowhere near as active as an infantryman in Stalingrad was
The Russians moved armies from the Chinese border, having defeated the Japanese there. Hitler had no idea of their resources.
Citino: Likely no large industrial scale warfare in the near future. Russia: hold my beer...
52:00 he predicted the Ukrainian War.
U boat threat was under control by early 1941, the end of the first "happy time". It resurged after US joined the war with the "second happy time" as US admiral King refused to follow successful British protocols that lead to massively increased merchant losses until they were bought under control for the second time, as he said.
I understand that the 2nd ""happy time" was allowed simply by US. port cities refusing to operates under blackout protocols, like you said the British had been. This allowed for all our ships leaving port to be targeted remarkably easily as all those ships were all silhouetted against all those city lights.
Sinkings of merchant ships remained a very serious problem until into 1943 when every aspect of the weapons used by the allies from naval vessels and aircraft to improved depth charges started to take a heavy toll on U boats so much so Hitler decided to reduce operations involving U boats.
There wee still substantial U-boat sinkings until the convoy battles of mid-1943.
I think if Germany had allied with Turkey and gone that route into the Soviet Union, grabbing their primary oil sources and potentially putting a real hurt on lend/lease (making oil the primary resource over trucks and equipment), the outcome may have been much different….
A nice presentation and overview, if very basic, of the European war.
@ Robert Rishel The Turks weren't stupid. They went in with Germany in the Great War, and it cost them their empire. Such as it was. In any case, operating from Turkey into the Caucasus was difficult. Covered in mountains the terrain was a nightmare. Few valleys to advance through, which makes any approach, over several hundred miles, predictable to the Soviets not to mention favourable defensive terrain. Baku was on the opposite side of the Caucasus on the Caspian Sea. There was no way to 'grab it'.
you seem to be oblivious of the combined british-soviet forces that secured iran in aug1941 (a couple months after germany invaded ussr), this actually secured that corridor into the soviet union where a rail line was built for lend lease supply
the germans had their eyes on the oil fields in the middle east, including the anglo iranian oil company (the forerunner to BP) as their refinery in iran was the largest in the world at that time ...
basically, the afrika campaign was given priority by both allies and axis powers due to a number of interests, not simply urelated to oil but it cetainly played a part..
with respect to turkey, many other nations in the region that qwere formed post ww1 were not exactly happy with the former ottoman turks as they were viewed as occupiers just as surely as the british/french were post ww1 .. different groups within the regions supported differnt countries
@@umenhuman7573 I'm not oblivious to anything. I'm pretty sure I have more qualifications in this arena than you do. The Iranians offered no resistance.
Comparing Iran to the Soviet Union in military terms is ridiculous.
As is your claim the "African" campaign was given priority.
@@DannyBoy777777 i was talking to the op
your appeal to authority and your distorted interpretation of whatare completely irrelevant
as an aside, since you brought it up...
its rediculous to claim the iranians offered "no resistance", it would be more accurate to say they were simply overwhelmed and therefore put up little resistance
my statement of fact regarding both allies and axis placing priority on afrikan campaigns is derived from declassified documents, ypou might try reading more of them and try to keep things in context (as you';ve demonstrated in your interpretation you seem to be prpone to errors in that regard)
@@umenhuman7573 Load of bullshit. Aside from the grammatically indecipherable paragraphs at the top, your claim that the Axis prioritised North Africa marks you out as a giant ignoramus. Four German divisions were in Africa in June 1941, and barely 10 by 1943. Over 200 were on the Eastern Front.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
The Soviet-British force suffered less than 60 fatalities. Like I said, organised resistance was practically zero.
Idiot.
If the Germans had landed only in one place in Norway, it would still be 5 places too many.
It was cockup after cockup.
56:12 very prescient!
I enjoy his talks but did he really say anything?
Judging by the other lectures of this series, including the ones from the other professors, the prepared speeches are really just a narrative of the invasion process. Any meaty info is left up to the audience to ask for during the Q&A, which probably explains why it takes up almost half the video. After all, its an auditorium on a cruiseship, not a university lecture hall.
He is like a Wikipedia page. No real substance. And he teaches the army college?
52:04 Yup, we're back to that
51 mins - I wonder if he would describe the Ukrainian war as an Industrial war?
Not yet, not quite yet. One might argue that it is such for Ukraine but it isn't quite that far for Russia and the rest of the world.
Limited war is the future of warfare, rather than Total War, for the short to medium term.
What a prophetic statement: 56:15 Listen to that, and tell me Citino isn’t totally brilliant.
For the algorithm
I love this dude
51:00 "Big large scale industrial warfare is unlikely to be fought in the future" - Rob Citino 2014. Oops.
First of all he said it’s what the college teaches. Also Ukraine is pretty local and contained compared to WW2. I don’t think that’s the type of “large scale industrial warfare” he’s referring to.
Re 56 minutes. USA looks unstable right now.
Very good lecture, but how many times we should explain Polish Cavalary never attacked german tanks on horseback!
Where did he say they did?
Not true. It is well known as the Krojanty offensive.
@@DannyBoy777777 Polish soldiers advanced east along the former Prussian Eastern Railway to railroad crossroads 7 kilometres from the town of Chojnice (Konitz) where elements of the Polish cavalry charged and dispersed a German infantry battalion. Machine gun fire from German armoured cars that appeared from a nearby forest forced the Poles to retreat. However, the attack successfully delayed the German advance, allowing the Polish 1st Rifle battalion and Czersk Operational Group to withdraw safely.
I do not see "charged tanks" anywhere in that.
@@PalleRasmussen Please tell me you didn't just read Wikipedia......
@@DannyBoy777777 I copied it. It is a long time since Wiki was unreliable. Today actual experts from all over will correct mistakes. Only on fringe topics is it inaccurate.
So there.
Poland was not Blitzkrieg. The Soviets attacked us from The Black 17th September. There were 1600+ skirmishes and battles between the Polish Army and Wehrmacht in 5 weeks.
Shame on them; they should have waited until the concrete had set?
You're right it was called bewegungskrieg it was a war of movement and of combined arms. Blitzkrieg is a made up word lol.
51:55
And the Soviets had OIL!
At 51:00 large scale industrial strength warfare is unlikely to be fought :) Oh the wonder we have of eagle eye hindsight :) Ukraine :)
I suspect that the Germans had the railway from hell. It made a bad supply situation infinitely worse.
So they bit themselves in their ass.
Yes they had the railway from hell that took millions of people to gas chambers
They actually had a pretty good railway system it was just overwhelmed especially in Russia as they had to change every mile to German gauge before it would be useable.
Yeah, even if they had the absolute best rail system ever, they would just use the excess capacity to kill more jews.
@@terimcrae4042 Earlier this year I read Yaron Pasher's "Holocaust versus Wehrmacht: How Hitler's 'Final Solution' Undermined the German War Effort", a painful subject, but a book I recommend.
11:53
Hardly did he know that less then 2 years later there would be another armored conflict in Ukraine 😢
"industrial scale warfare is unlikely to be fought" (in the future).
Yet here we are in 2024 trying to supply arms to Ukraine for an industrial scale war. Not a huge one, but we're still struggling.
Fundamentally German organizational psychology is very different from American organizational psychology - Germans loathe bureaucracy and believe in self-sufficiency; that a small elite team can out-perform a large "unprofessional" mass. If you live in Germany you will see this in action at every level of society - German businesses encourage and rely on lower level personnel taking initiative and "handling" things on their own. Americans - despite saying they enshrine initiative - are far more hierarchical than Germans. And, of course, saying something and doing something are two different things. Now - this is not to say that Germans do not develop and appreciate organization and what they term "order;" but Germans are far more respectful of the benefits of order. Germans are not Americans, not French or British and certainly not Italians.
Large scale industrial war won't be fought in the near future...perhaps the US army war college should have emailed a course program to Vlad the invader.
51:14 2023 here would beg to differ. Russia v Ukraine looking pretty similar to early 20th century wars
It wouldn’t beg to differ. The speaker was scarily correct. Did you not hear him comparing Hitler’s use of the ethnic, pro-annex Germans in the Sudetenland to Putin’s potential to do the exact thing in countries containing pro-annex Russians? His analogy/prediction was spot on…
This mf is fast becoming my favourite WW2 historian
The did not have fuel for the ME262 Jet-plane and it was made by slaves resulting in serious quality issues.
Bro repeating some tired old tropes about Germans being fast & fully motorized in the polish campaign (20% were in 1939) and Poles on horseback (_both_ armies relied on horses for logistics & scouting)
Annoying that the Allies had jet-fighters just as advanced very soon after Germany. Its not expert-knowledge.
Partner capacity.... I need a girlfriend
Guderian did not sit on People’s Courts. What he did -- preside over Honor Courts that discharged army officers so they could be tried by the political People’s Courts led by the repulsive Roland Freisler - was bad enough without adding to it.
Germany, pretty good at border warfare when they got first bite at the apple. Sustainable resources and logistics? Came on like cheap speed, then massive fade. The Russians killed them. Russia's long game fueled by US Lendlease and the certain knowledge it was a war of extermination.
41:00 I believe Stalin refused to sign the Geneva Convention (Second*) regarding the treatment of POWs so the Germans basically had no reason to treat Soviet POWs with any respect at all.
If you're on a deserted island which is not part of any jurisdiction and hence no laws apply, you could kill people without breaking any laws. But what you're doing is still murder, even if it doesn't technically break any laws.
Treaties exist to enforce established conventions. They don't create them. If you're seriously trying to justify the vicious treatment of Soviet POWs (that resulted in some 3 million deaths) with the argument that there was no treaty protecting them, something's seriously wrong with your moral compass.
The Soviet Union signed the Geneva Convention on 27th June 1929. There are podcasts on YT which German prisoners said that Russian soldier's rations were not much better than what they received .The Russian campaign was characterised by the most heinous atrocities on the part of the Germans, which were a feature of what went on in other occupied territories from the Balkans the Channel Islands. Massacres of US,Canadian and British troops which became known was an invitation to allied soldiers to reciprocate such behaviour and they did.
@@lawrencebrown3677 The allies were executing prisoners on D-Day, and had orders to do so.It wasn't reprisal behaviour.
@@lawrencebrown3677 thats too simple. Atrocities from German troops to Western allies did happen but were far from the norm. To say that only because of these instances allied troops commit crimes as well is not correctly portaiting the situation.
And btw, war crimes do always happen in war. Their appearance in themselves is nothing unusual. The crucial point is: how are they dealt with by the corresponding military organisation.
The Wehrmacht in 1939 was not carried on wheels and tracks, he has that entirely wrong, only 20%, the tip of the spear, was motorised, the other 80% trudged along behind on foot and hoof, most of the German artillery & logistics was horsedrawn. The allied armies in Belgium were nto encircled, they withdrew back into France and ended up in a pocket on the coast around Dunkirk. Sorry, but this guy has so much of the details outright wrong, which makes me question how good he is on the bigger picture too.
52:00 “Who cares about the Ukraine today?”
Well dr, seems you might have been ahead of the curve
How typical that an American historian should cover the events of 1940 without a single mention of The Battle of Britain, the largest aerial battle in history. Had the RAF lost the battle the Normandy landings would not have been possible. Why no mention of such a crucial victory?
Had that phase of the war been won the Germans, they could have bombed UK industry into rubble as there would have been no air defense left. No doubt about it.
What a shame it turned out the way it did
If I understand the title/content of the presentation correctly- it's more about how the Nazi's operated in Europe once they took over and how they took over; not necessarily about the battles and so forth. Since the Nazis lost the Battle of Britain (and thus did not take over Britain) I think that's why it isn't mentioned. As an American myself I am very well aware of the Battle of Britain and the Legendary bravery of RAF pilots. Did you know there were 3 "Eagle Squadrons" of American volunteers who flew with the RAF during the Battle of Britain? Once the USA was "officially" at war they were folded into the regular US military- but even then most of the Eagle Squadron pilots still wore their RAF Wings on their American uniforms. ;)
@lorddaver3019 The Battle of Britain was NOT the largest air battle in history. It was vitally important, but not the largest. That was the strategic bombing campaign over Germany.
He seems a little too happy about all this mayhem.
1:06:38 funny in the future war in Ukraine is exactly what happened
An amazing and prophetic question as well.
If the enemy has Panzer ones in Panzer twos and you’re on horseback dismounting with antitank rifle’s Then You better rethink your strategy!
Not only that it was the Soviets coming in the back door that put an end to the Polish campaign.... we don’t want to put too much emphasis on that now do we???
But the unknown secret of bewagenkrieg was the luftwaffe Who in the early days get no credit whatsoever possibly even more important than the Panzer units although it was a combined arms effort either way
True, Germany ran Europe as early as Summer 1940. Too bad they only had it for about two years. The Empire Ceaser made had it for about 400 years. You can barely begin to actually build and control an empire in 2 years.
The Germans were not building an empire; they were sucking the wealth out of conquered territories - a classic ponzi scheme (on steroids).
@@EllieMaes-Grandad my point exactly. The term "Empire" doesn't fit.
@@styx4947 Thank you - so few understand.
That's why the Brits, Russians, and Americans were so obdurate. They knew that if the Germans had time to consolidate and Germanicise the area under their control, the job would be immensely more difficult.
@@glorgau The Germans did not attempt to Gernmanize the conquered people. The goal was to murder them and replace them with Germans. Please read about Generalplan Ost.
9:22 It's ironic that the map has the name "Greater Germany" on it to refer to the worst Germany that ever existed.
"Greater" as in greater in size
@@amir-ng6jv Yes, I got that, that's why I used the term ironic.
2023 - Do not invade Russia!
First rule in Montgomery's rules of war. Don't invade russia
The big question. Could the USSR alone have defeated nazi Germany? The Atom bomb - the Russians would have had it by 1948. Who knows about Germany?
Alone in combat but with the same materiel support the US provided? Definitely. If the US was totally uninvolved? Maybe not. Also it’s well known that the German atomic bomb project was never very far in development and was disorganized and piecemeal. Also they never were able to get anywhere near the heavy water needed because of allied sabotage in Norway. They might have gotten there eventually but it would have taken years. The USSR’s atomic bomb de elopement was sped up by the theft of US atomic secrets so it’s hard to tell how long it would have taken them without that.
If you’re interested there are transcripts of German nuclear scientists who were detained together and unknowingly recorded after the war. They were never close.
The Soviets wouldn't have made a nuclear weapon if the US didn't have it to steal from
Paulus was in 1937 Russian war games and told the OKW that the Wehrmacht couldn’t defeat the Red Army then why would it fall on deaf ears ? The German hubris defeated themselves
Geez I would like presenter to learn to modulate their voice better. It varies from soft to loud without reasons maybe he learned to do that to keep audience up but actually you have to time it up with your narrative and not do it constantly random.
at the 20 min mark he is still only talking trops. This is bullshit! At first I thought he was just doing a set up, but no only fake trops
Ok Nazi
What a succiphant
Germany used 3 million horses and miles in World War 2. They used them in Poland, Russia, and elsewhere, largely to pull equipment. The primitive army of Germany was easily defeated by the USA thousands of miles from our homeland. It is estimated the United States could have defeated an army 10× as powerful as the Nazis during World War 2. The United States Army considered the Germans a pathetic joke.
The 'pathetic joke' killed a whole lot of Americans [and British, and others] before finally being stopped . . .
that really is a pathetic vomment not basrd on historical fact but American bravado
@@terrysmith9362 Seriously absolutely moronic. 16 million served in the Wehrmacht does this guy actually believe that the USA alone could defeat an army that had 160 million men serve in 10 years.
@@bigvinnie3 he is just anothet thick Yank
Utter insanity. 10x the German army would be easily 100,000,000 soldiers. The U.S. Army would likely lose that fight if the 100,000,000 were Neolithic hunter-gatherers with spears, and the German Army was most certainly not Neolithic. If you look into actual history you would quite quickly come to the understanding that far from the U.S. Army deriding the Germans, the 𝘎𝘦𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘴 actually considered 𝘜.𝘚. soldiers to be comically amateurish in their battlefield conduct.
Disliked when you mocked Portugal whilst being a literal American.
Contrasting with figurative Americans
Mayhaps even allegorical ones!
This sucks..second grade WW2.. losers actually went on a WW 2 cruz
What the fuck is a cruz you mean cruise. I also wouldn't call they losers most are respectable people and historians. You're just some rando on YT.