This question comes from tigertank06 under our video about the allies invading German territory and receiving German surrenders by the thousands. Thanks for the question!
I’ve wondered the same thing. After Stalingrad the Germans were pushed back but it wasn’t like the dam had broken. In 1944 they can’t put up any resistance at all. What’s the biggest difference?
This is UNDOUBTEDLY what has to happen to Russia today. The thought of the Russians having the TEMERITY to sit down "and negotiate"??? No WAY. They have to be defeated, then sat down and told the way it's gonna be.
This collapse scenario only reflects the western front, the troops facing USSR troops in the east kept fighting. Units that collapsed tended to be in the rear and would go west to surrender to the UK & US forces rather than Soviet troops.
Ehh I’d argue they had a total collapse in WW1 100 days offensive not a single day where the allies didn’t advance the high seas fleet mutinied The 2 main reasons for surrender was the naval mutiny and they didn’t want to fight in Germany because they thought it would be destroyed like they had destroyed Belgium and France
@@kingcrafteroderderfahradtu7331 What isn't hard to understand is how the German Army collapsed in 1945. What's shocking is how the German Army kept fighting so effectively throughout 1944.
@DrCruel in 1944 the German Amry sufferd it's worst defeat yet with the Soviet Bagration Offensive. Later in the year they wasted their last reserves and ressources in a rather sensless offensive during the Battle of the bulge. I would'nt say thats very effective.
There is a flip side to this. Hitler encouraged and promoted the idea, held by many Germans, that they had not been defeated in 1918. They had signed an “armistice,” an agreement meant to give them a breathing space while an honorable peace was negotiated. Germany was then “stabbed in the back by Jews and communists,” at Versailles. Taking no chances on a repeat, the Allies agreed that they would only accept unconditional surrender, in 1945.
I've always been torn. The Germans had been defeated on the battlefield in 1918- at this point primarily by British empire forces with an important assist from the US, and not forgetting the overwhelming role the French army had been playing in wearing them down 1914-17, and still played in 1918- and they were retreating. Their last viable offensives had failed, and they were retreating and would have kept doing so. Allied logistical superiority was also finally telling. That brief tiny chance they could have broken Allied morale in early 1918 had passed for good. The arrival of overwhelming new US forces in 1919 would have meant the invasion of Germany. The victory in the east had proved to be insufficient to redress any of the troop or resource needs in the short term. Still, they had stabilized the front and were holding better than in December 1944. So, not least from historical patriotism myself, I always emphasize the Allies had in fact won the war in battle. It was not a war without victory and the troops had not died for nothing in the end. Still, were I German I'd still b*tch about the communists and social democrats and the revolutions of November, not to say the sailors and soldiers mutinying. Political, social, and state collapse on the home front DID indisputably put the German army in an untenable position and the German negotiators in an equally untenable position at both the armistice talks and later at Versailles. Without that, maybe they didn't have to agree to an armistice that preemptively put their armed forces in hock and meant an inevitable punitive peace for which the Allies had no incentive to moderate. Still criminal to blame it on the Jews, though. Almost all of those men were not remotely Jewish.
@@randomobserver8168 My takeaway is that the Germans had proven themselves to be the ultimate “sore losers,” never willing to admit defeat. Unconditional surrender was demanded out of necessity.
Hitler would refuse to ever negotiate unless it was on his terms . He called the Kaiser a coward for surrendering but the Kaiser knew if Germany kept fighting their country would be obliterated . That’s why he himself agreed to step down . Hitler was going to sacrifice every last man woman and child then surrender .
@@averagegamer6912Why does the 155 at the end of their username matter? I might as well ask you why you have the number 6912 at the end of your username. They're both random numbers lol
Are you guys numbered asteroids? Sorry for rapid fire questions, but I'm a human, and also see parallels with conscious cells or entities or AI deceivers, or something that has been present, multi faceted, and confusing, seemingly like a ever-changing community of interactive, vague, friends enemies, hostiles, abusers, etc... never in physical form, just recognized by seeing their content that involves my environment. This whole time they have been present. My status has gone from good, to ok, to struggle, to bad, to desperate, to survival mode, to barely hanging on by a thread. Confused the whole time. I don't know what is behind this situation, but I suspect science and experiments, maybe cell cloning recreation and a reincarnation and repeat of an extremely unpleasant traumatic existence. I would rather burn myself up in an internal blaze and not leave 1 viable cell than to risk my consciousness or anything made from me have to do this again. And I didn't get cooperation, Truth, understanding, consideration, from the surveillance. Should I consider myself a country? A nation? An experiment? I relate with the 1918 and 1945 situations. If I understood what was happening I might have had a chance to not run myself into the grips of death with absolutely nothing to lose. I'm just trying to understand still, but the perspective is part of it.
In 1918 the Germans also had the "advantage" of how rapid penetrations of their lines would be slowed down by limitations in transportation and communications. More than one Canadian breakthrough was stopped not by strong resistance but by the thrust itself becoming too disorganized to continue pushing against even limited resistance.
That's not true though the Germans were being crushed during the hundred good days campaign and were constantly losing ground and being pushed back into Germany. To make matters worse, the Navy mutinied and there was a revolution in Germany because of the blockade. So in short, their military was rapidly losing men and ground which caused their Navy to revolt which inspired their starving populace to also revolt. They had no advantage in 1918 and had lost, they just had the common sense to surrender before they were obliterated. Their army was nearly routed in just 3 months and their soldiers had lost all morale. They were collapsing and had the common sense to give up as they could no longer keep fighting.
@@tylersmith3139 I think you missed my point: It wasn't a crystallization of German resistance that stopped breakthroughs, it was that deep breakthroughs were pretty much impossible to carry out. That's why you had the developing cycle of: - German lines smashed open. - Attacking forces surge into the gap chasing retreating Germans. - Attacking forces outrun their lines of supply and communication. - The time it takes to deal with German stragglers and rear guards increases. - The main body of the retreating Germans, who are moving back into established supply and communications networks, outpaces the attacking forces. - The attacking force ends the breakthrough to reestablish a state of control and supply. - The Germans establish a new line. There was a constant hope, even by generals like Currie, that the next breakthrough would see a return to full maneuver warfare but it really wasn't possible given the nature of technology in 1918. (N.B. I put scare quotes around advantage for a reason.)
The same thing kinda happened to the Germans too in 1918 earlier in the year during their Spring Offensive if I remember correctly right? the Stormtroopers punched hard and deep but sustained overwhelming casualties and the regular infantry couldnt properly consolidate the ground gained along with efficient supply lines not being able to develop because of the depth of the breakthrough so the ground was lost as quickly as it was gained
Not true. The British had developed bite and hold tactics. They would gain ground and then stop to solidify control of the ground they gained, and then get more ground. It was organized and methodical.
@cooldudicus7668 Those tactics weren't being used in the hundred days campaign because the Germans were in no state to go back on the offensive. Instead there was an effort to try and trigger a total collapse and a return to open maneuver warfare.
So many little details in there, too: Manpower - they were left with young boys and the elderly. Food distribution - food was plentiful for the Germans when they were taking it from occupied countries, but when they were driven out of those occupied areas, less food to go around. lack of fuel.
If you look at Manpower they would have had enough but with no fighting abilities at all. Its often said that in 45 only children and 80 years old were fighting which is not true.
@@akronym4439 Men of the desired age ranges were seriously depleted, and with the Soviets and western Allied forces advancing into Germany, they were rounding up boys and pulling men out of old age homes. But you are right, they did have some of them in the fight, too.
To be fair, thanks to the italians and the completely lost southern front (A-H was out), that was about to happen to Germany already in 1918. And even before the further divisions from the US came for the americans and the rest of the Entente on the West. 1945 was definitely the worst and the imperial could still fight, but soon it would've looked like kind of similar to the nazis in 1945 with that front there, despite the East being solved.
I think the more appropriate question here is "How in the hell did they survive until 1945?" I mean, they lost their track as soon as the summer of 1943, it's a miracle they still kicking in 1945.
They survived by looting the nations that they conquered, which is why they had to keep expanding. I've seen it called a 'vampire economy,' and that fits. If they'd been prevented from taking Czechoslovakia in 1938, they could have collapsed much sooner, but the Allies both didn't know that, and weren't ready militarily.
Something worth remembering: in the autumn of 1918, the German Army was beaten in the field and the prolonged fighting would only lead to collapse. The Hundred Days offensive was marked by one Allied victory after another, with more and more German soldiers surrendering. There were no reserves, no miracles, no aces in the sleeve for the Germans in the final weeks of the war. And oh, let's not forget: by late October, Germany was alone on the battlefield, so the strategic situation could only get worse for them, and fast.
The German people were starving fast. If the war didn't end, allowing in supplies and preparing for former troops to get back in the farm fields the entire country would have been dead in late 1919. But that didn't fit the Hitler narrative of "you are victims" and "I'll make you great again".
Yeah, Germany was already beaten on the field and any chance of them winning or even having a stalemate was long gone. They surrendered then to get a better deal which they did get as Germany stayed intact.
You’re forgetting that with the Russian Revolution and Russia’s withdrawal from the conflict, vast numbers of men and material were freed up to be transferred to the Western front. It’s easy to sit here and say ‘oh Germany was on the brink of collapse’ but do not forget, the generals had been saying that for years.
@@Sturmjuergen44 that's not how it works.the army was beaten and asked for an armistice as it was not able to stem the tide of the Allied army in any way.
It should also be mentioned that in 1945, large parts of the German army were still holding out at places like northern Italy and the Baltic, so these troops could not be used to defend Germany itself.
Well all those factors goes hand in hand- if you lack fuel , you are out of transportation of materials which leads to factories not being able to produce anything which leads to soldiers lacking equipment (guns , ammunition etc)
I doubt it just because the number of factories that were destroyed/ damaged by the allied bombing , lack of quality materials and skilled workers, you can see this just by looking at photos of German soldiers at the last stage of war, many of them having captured weapons or cheap versions of original designs
Even more critically, the railroads were destroyed by 1945. Factory output actually dramatically increased in 1944, despite Allied bombings against factories are factory workers (residential areas), but collapsed once the Allies realised targeting infrastructure was a better choice.
Also the german army was collapsing when the armistsce was signed. The hundred days offensive was gaining more ground in a week than was seen in years. The war ended before there was no army left, but it was well on its way to getting there.
I’ve not picked up any literature on the topic, but I have to imagine the mind of a German soldier (and civilian) in late 1944 and 1945 was a constant race of thoughts.
@@mattfantastic9969 my grandfather was a volunteer for both world wars, the difference for ww2 was he fought for his fallen brothers of ww1 and the people of his country not for Hitler.
@@alexipestov7002 In 1918 both German Army and people were starving and the Army was in constant retreat against strengthening allied forces. The difference was between realism and fantasy and there would probably have been a similar 6 month period as between the Bulge battle and disintegration.
It's not the question why they collapsed so quickly in 1945, but why only in 1945. The Wehrmacht had been shattered time and time again, the last major victory having been the counteroffensive on Kharkov. Millions had gone into captivity, entire divisions, Corps and even Armies ceased to exist. They had lost nearly all gains by late 1944 and made it all the way to March 1945 before everything started collapsing
I think a reason they may have collapsed quickly in 45 is some of the pointless offensives hitler order near the end just consumed such massive resources men and materials.
Another thing to note is that by 1918, the German Army still had some strength as the eastern front with Russia had closed. Which is why they still had all of the control over Germany and even parts of Belgium. But in 1944, Germany (even Berlin) had already been damaged by air raids.
@oliversherman2414 still, he wanted to ally with British (it says so several times in Mein Kämpf), and he would have accepted a treaty that kept him in power in 1944 and 45. He tried to negotiate peace with Britain in 1940 and 41 several times. It was actually the Allies who decided only to accept unconditional surrender, as they wanted the Nazis completely gone because of the awful things they had done.
@@TDP-t7o Maybe, but he also thought of Britain as being below Germany. So Britain would be seen as more of a client state than an ally. And, speaking of Mein Kampf, one of the things Hitler kept rambling about was conquering the east for "Lebensraum" and wiping out the Slavic population to make way for German colonisation. So, yeah, the Molotov-Ribentropp pact was a non-aggression pact. There was never any room for an alliance with Russia in Hitler's mind, given he thought their ideology was a threat to his and he thought of the Russian people as "subhuman"
@@oliversherman2414 Not true Hitler didnt see Britain as below Germany he actually stated pretty clearly he saw them as equals and as essentially Germans as well, industrious, innovative etc even offered to GB Germany's assistance if they ever were attacked in an early peace offer during the war. Hitler also never spoke of Lebensraum it doesnt exist anywhere with him quoting it. Somewhat a commonly held revisionist point.
I remember reading about how the Continental Army, in the American War of Independence, had the radical idea of actually paying their soldiers a decent wage. It was a good idea, and deserved to work, except that the continental dollar deflated faster than it could be printed. The situation got so bad that even the ink for the printers became in sort supply, and some of the dollar bills came out blank. Wags of the time quipped that, soon, the blank bills would be worth more than the printed ones.
If you’re referring to the Germans in ww2, then they often didn’t, hence the mass surrendering. The last scraps of the army were sufficiently indoctrinated Wehrmacht units that believed that the Russians were going to do to Germany what they did to Russia, and what was left of the SS.
You can be the most powerful country ever. But if you've made enemies with almost the entire world, you're doomed. Have a nice day you all, greetings from Germany
Something some of us remind each other here in the US of. Not entirely common, but enough. You're never too big to fall, and it's best not to forget that. Cheers from 9 hours away!
@erichhartmann3960 thank God -NO!!! These are barbaric monsters who make up their own rules and declare anyone as their enemies they like to. In my country they are supported by the current government! They are literally getting paid lots of money for bludgeoning down random people who disagree with them. And I am completely disgusted by these moving things (I will not call them humans 😂) . But yeah, this is my opinion on the Antifa. I am certainly not one of them.... What are your thoughts on my answer? I'd really appreciate a reply, because I think you might have misjudged me. Anyways have a nice day
Or the fact the USSR destroyed the entire Eastern front, resulting in Germany losing their best armies, millions of soldiers, and a lot of resources during operation Bagration and ended with the German army being unable to fight and was forced to retreat. The allies held as long as they did due to USA and their lend lease The German army fully collapsed because the USSR destroyed germanys strongest and most professional armies and became impossible for the Germans to fight back effectively as they lost their hold on the entire continent after the Soviet operation Bagration
@@slavic_viking9638 they did, but 17.5 million tons of U.S. aid in the form of equipment and food speed the fight up. “Stuff” wins wars. Look at all the logistics you need to support one warfighter.
@@slavic_viking9638red army only won because of the lend lease as well. In an avid red army fan but facts are facts you don’t change them because you don’t like it. It is a fact that the red army would have collapsed and been obliterated like in the initial stages of operation Barbarossa had the Americans not provided a blank check basically.
@@imranreiaz-wk9lv all these claims on "the lend lease won the Eastern Front" begin to crumble completely when you actually research the Lend Lease process and complications of it's logistics. All this stuff wasn't teleported into the USSR immediately, y'know. And amount of shipments was pretty much meager and only slowly increasing as the war went by. One shipment usually lasts 6 months until it could be used by the troops - this time is like an eternity at that war. Red Army was receiving only crumbles during it's most crucial times, and after completing the evacuation process and restoration of it's industry, it started to rise on it's feet steadily and turned the war even before the massive flow of Lend Lease goods begun (in 1944). It sure helped to save a lot of Soviet lives and end the war early, but Soviets definitely put Germans on a stalemate largely by themselves and probably were even able to win the war later if they purchased important goods from the West for gold which they had in abundance thanks to Magnitogorsk mining complex that was created before the war just for such a case. In short - Lend Lease largely helped to finish off the Third Reich, but Wehrmacht was broken by Soviet industry and soldiers, not matter how unsightly it may seem to you. Logistics win wars you say, so instead of looking up "final numbers" of stuff that arrived mostly in 1945, look up in details what, how much and WHEN it was delivered.
@@imranreiaz-wk9lv if facts are facts, you'd know most of that lend-lease didn't arrive until well after the tide of the war had turned on the Eastern Front. The Red Army would have only collapsed if God himself willed it so without American lend-lease.
I feel like this explanation leaves out the fact that the Germans decided that they would rather have most of their empire occupied by the western allies who would potentially allow them to continue their way of life than the Soviets who would upend the entire nazi order and get revenge for the war of extermination Germany waged against them. So they held out viciously in the east while they basically allowed the western front to collapse at a certain point. You can say Hitler would have rather had Germany completely destroyed than surrender, but by 1945 his generals and closest allies (especially the SS) were operating against his wishes to surrender to the western allies thinking they stood a better chance of avoiding mass executions. Not for nothing that after the war the west german legal system was RAMPANT with "former" nazis.
Lack of oil for fuel, lack of air force, lack of friends, a bad dictatorship that believed in bureaucratic competition rather than cooperation. And they were evil.
Surely a major factor is that in 1945 the allies demanded unconditional surrender, whereas 1918 had (nominally) been an armistice. The allies in WW2 wanted to prevent a re-run of the post-war situation from WW1 and so demanded that Germany be completely defeated, whilst the Germans had previously seen how an armistice could turn into a diktat.
The unconditional surrender was offered after Hitlers death im pretty sure, and the government that remained was under the German admiral Karl donitz whose remaining land was held in Denmark and northern Germany so they accepted.
and also the fact that hitler was willing to put every last man, woman, and child between him and the allies and soviets. he wouldn’t have unconditionally surrendered no matter what, and he certainly wouldn’t have let his subordinates negotiate that
In WW1 the Germans made a peace treaty with the Russians and sent all those forces to the Western front. During WW2, they kept fighting everybody. Russian, Greece, Italy, Norway, France. They were fighting almost 360 degrees.
In 1918 the German army was on rapid retreat along a fairly short (compared to 1945) front line. There were no technological capabilities to hit the German rear in any distinguished way and the eastern front was fairly stable. In 1945 the German army was severly under attack from at least 4 seperate fronts (Holland- Belgium - France, Italy, Yuguslavia and the entire front with the USSR) plus holding substantial garrisons in Norway, Curland (mainly Latvia) and various locations in Greece, France and the Channel Islands which were ineffective due to that. The German rear was constantly attacked and by March 1945 the ammunition and military hardware production had collapsed and many formations just had to consume whatever they had or could find around them.
I'm guessing it collapsed due to the allies attacking before the Atlantic wall was completed and the Soviets outnumbering them. Running out of oil probably didn't help either.
The exhausted their men, material, supplies, infrastructures you name it. They literally had nothing left, they were enlisted old men and boys by 1945.
As a German, it makes me very, very sad that those in power in Germany at the time were so defiant. I think I once heard that Hitler wanted to punish “the Aryan race” for the defeat by destroying the country. In the bunker, Hitler came up with some kind of army to defeat the excessive number of Soviet soldiers... (Let's be honest, it was actually clear from the start that a country like Germany would not be able to compete for long against a country with such a large army - but back then they thought they could take on anyone...) In addition, an excessive number of soldiers died on all sides between 1944 and 1945. Millions of soldiers could certainly have been saved if the war had simply ended earlier. There would probably have been fewer cities in ruins. (It's also sad how many beautiful buildings from the imperial era were destroyed by the bombs).
It wasn't Hitlers choice to make. The Allies were explicitly that they wouldn't stop until Germany was completely subjugated and condition put in place to prevent them from becoming a major power again. Some in the Allied governments were even advocating ethnic cleansing, which they ended up doing in some parts.
Against large armies* and an army supported by the US* with the prehemptive strike of 1941, the soviets were collapsing. Maybe it would've been tougher in a confrontation were both armies in the east were prepared and fully. The problem was fighting the US, UK and USSR, especially the USSR and US.
Excessive number of soviet soldiers? What? Nazi Germany and it's allies had MORE troops throughout most of the war, the key part is troops themselves - where english, american or german would surrender, soviet will fight till their death, even if all they have are a knife and a Stalin poster. This was the critical part of why Germany took over France in one fell swoop, but was boggled down in USSR from day one.
They sort of didnt. The Wehrmact of post March 1945 had far more cohesion than MOST other historical examples of forces facing a total defeat against a much stronger or technologically superior opponent. By comparison, arab armies fighting the Israelis or Western Coalitions basically evaporated (even with numerical superiority in some cases), large swaths of chinese armies also faltered in the face of numerically inferior japanese troops, or how nations facing Germany between 1939 and 1941 also suffered total breakdowns despite on paper having lots of fighting capabilities remaining. There was a collective understanding amonst the Wehrmact that the Soviets needed to be delayed as much as possible and that even though the war was clearly going to be lost, still spilling blood to delay that inevitable outcome had a purpose (primarily evacuation of civilians westwards, but also fanatical hatred for this particular enemy)
Absolutely. And more than the nazi and SS part, the soviet presence (and the instead positive Allied presence, because they were humanes) did it all for that cohesion and battle continuation. At least for the troops in the Eastern Front.
It took the allies until July 1944 to attack the german fuel production. Fuel had been sparse before, so it is strange they did not do that earlier. Giant plants that could not be relocated. Within 3 months, fuel production was down to 30%. At the end of the war, it was down to 3%. Makes it more understandable why there are so many images of intact, abandoned german vehicles. Why the Battle of the Bulge faltered after a few days (beside it clearing up so that the allied planes could start again and shoot at anything that moved).
Lost of Romanian.airfields in mid-1944 restricted German mobility. So many abandoned panzers and Luftwaffe aircraft. Somehow the U-Boats kept going to the end.
The correct answer is just 'logistics'. American air power, particularly fighter planes. After escorting the bombers, extended fuel ranges let them roam the countryside shooting up any vehicle that moved. This phenomenon didn't exist in WWI. In WWII, it also caused the lack of food and medical supplies to the German concentration camps that led to all those beloved films of English and American bulldozers pushing the piles of corpses that resulted from these shortages. Yes, those in the camps were in meager diets to begin with so it took little to push them over the edge, but the push was definitely applied quite effectively from the air.
The bridge at Remagen really accelerated the Nazi's downfall. They were destroying every bridge over the Rhine, where they would establish a new defendable barrier that would allow them to regroup (at least partly). But the US 9th armored advanced too quickly, and reached the bridge at remagen before it was destroyed. After capturing that bridge, the Allies had secured a supply line directly into the heart of Nazi Germany, shortening the war
Could it be that the Allies who won the war on land, on the sea, below the sea, and in air...on hundreds of fronts from the Arctic to the Equator to South Atlantic, out fought the Germans on a spectacular scale? That, unlike the Russians, the Allies fought with intelligent tactics, under competent leadership, and roundly defeated them in 11 months from the D-Day Landings to the surrender? Supported by the defeat in North Africa and Sicily Landings in 1943 that attacked German's soft underbelly--as Churchill put it (And tried to do in WWI).
So many wehraboos and russia sympathisers ignore this. Thanks for mentioning it. (Russian tactics weren't too stupid, that's more of a hollywood myth, but ultimately you are correct)
Deluded addict by that time. Somehow thought the Western allies would put him in charge of a puppet government. The allies decided on no Puppet government and direct military rule. Which Britain couldn't really afford. Britain lost WW II too.
In 1918 the brakes on the car worked before they Thelma and Louise'd the nation. Next time, they removed the brakes and the steering so 1945 was far more cinematic.
To simplify: the German army in 1945 was a shadow of its pre war self. The war had completely destroyed the infrastructure that supported it(factories, railroads, supply lines etc) and after the Invasion of Russia the German state just could provide the man power to support it. Also by the end of the war the spirit of the german people was effectively broken as the country itself laid in ruins.
Like several other comments suggested, it's baffling that they didn't immediately collapse in '43. I'd however like to posit a different reason. Because of the Fascist tendency where 2 + 2 can equal 5, accurately keeping track of all disparate troops, materiel, ammunition, and other inventory is rendered effectively impossible. Nobody, not even HQ, can give an accurate accounting of what is where, how much of anything remains, nor whether a transport/convoy in transit is STILL in transit or was actually captured/destroyed en route. Projection of "Strength" is of the utmost importance, and since nobody wants to be the messenger delivering such bad news to leadership, they just...don't. That being said, the Nazi army was more than likely far closer to collapse than it appeared externally, and internally (their projection of strength not only confuses their enemies, but their own forces as well), but because nobody could know exactly what they did or did not have, they assumed they were still "strong". I hope this made sense. It's not an easy task trying to rationalize an irrational ideology, like Fascism (what Nazism is based upon)...
This is true. When the whole picture became clear towards the End, the allied were actually surprised to see in what a Bad statw the German Military actually was, despite appearing so strong all the time.
@@muscledavis5434 _EDIT: I just love how UA-cam unilaterally decides which comments to allow, and which to suppress, without any notification to anybody they're doing so!_ *_(Switch from sorting comments by Top Comments, to Newest, and you'll see all of the yeeted comments.)_* One might think it intuitive that merely appearing strong and intimidating is enough to make that true, but it does little to keep forces fed or clothed, nor can it relieve beleaguered troops in need of reinforcement. Not to mention replenishment of exhausted ammunition or materiel supplies. It's figurative cardboard cutouts of those things, in place of the genuine article. IOUs, as it were.
But fascism isn't irrational? It's whole point is "everything within the state" - people give up their individuality for the sake of state interests. It's the same as saying Hitler was a madman - he wasn't, that's what makes his ideology so scary and dangerous.
And this is why no political figures should be seen as gods, or as friends, or as heroes, because this is what happens, and has happened so many times before.
@@RkRk-xu1ww comparing loving animals versus ending slavery is pretty wild yo britian was 100 times better than mustache man jsut because someone wins, doesn't make them bad
As a Russian, and former Soviet citizen, I can Tell you why. 27 MILLION souls just like I am ended up not returning to their homes. Men, mothers, children, granpas, and grannies. That's why
Wait, wasn't there already a short about the assassination of Ante Pavelic? Now I'm seeing this one instead of the other, not that I'm complaining but I'm a little confused 😅
There was actually a slight error with the video that we missed! We want to correct it and this one was ready to go, so rather than having no short today this one was released instead.
@@korbell1089 As a Serbian my first thought was that our graceful Balkan peoples, occupying several parallel universes, each with their own history, have already turned the short into a s***fest. I'm glad I was wrong, at least for the time being.
Germany also knew what would happen to them if they surrendered to the Soviet’s, they’d be utterly destroyed and much worse treatment would happen to them. After all they didn’t want to surrender to the Soviet’s but rather the British and French. However Russia didn’t want that and they were much closer to Berlin and beating the Germans than any other allied country so Germany did everything in its power to hold off the soviets in hopes Britain and France would beat them to Berlin.
@@Snaxolotl71 Because they were like the nazis. Plus they wanted to exploit the resources too. Instead the Allies brought actual peace and also future in the theatre/Europe
@@Snaxolotl71USSR was a good nation, BUT only after Stalin died. If USSR didnt have this crazy maniac dictator. USSR would be a super power to this day and probably be democratic. Oh well....
@@Snaxolotl71 Bro, i was born in Russia. I know what i am talking about. Communism in 1910s and 1920s had a real chance to establish itself in the whole world, it was really popular. But Stalin ruined everything, he murdered so many people, established himself as an absolute unquestioned dictator which went compleatly against everything Lenin and Socialism stood for. His actions are responsible for a rappid decline of the popularity of socialism in the world. He ruined it all. I cant believe how anyone can defend him. Mygreat Grandfather and Grandmother were put in "working" camps because Stalin felt like it. Only the great grandmother survived. The whole family was deported to siberia. He didnt care about communism or any other idiology, he just saw the chance and used it to succed Nicolaus II and become a tsar, an emporer himself. I strongly believe that if Hitler didnt invade USSR, there would be another civil war.
To summarize, the allies (mostly France) showed in 1918 and especially france's invasion of 1923 made it clear that surrendering would result in a very punitive peace. Meaning that it is better to fight till the end, as some miracle could exhaust your enemies, and you will not get any leniency for surrendering anyway. France will make sure of that.
Yes this point was absolutely glossed over. Germans had signed armistice in hopes of an end to the great war and return to peace. they had the worst economic suffering and the Black disgrace foisted upon them. I can quite see why they thought surrender was not an option in 1945, the Allies had shown their hand in regards to defeated nations.
another thing was that Germany didn't start WW1 and still got unbearable conditions in the armistice of Versailles. There was no reason to believe that anything would change for the better if they surrendered early in WW2 which they started
They got roflstomped way earlier that 45 by the Soviets. They kept going because they knew what kind of mercy they would get after their attrocities and genocide on the land of USSR and eastern Europe.
They were defeated by a combined allied effort. Lend-Lease allowing the soviets to have any success. And the soviets being barbarians would ruin all of europe.
Germany ran out of fuel by 1945 while allies had largest invasion force in history from east and west, highly motorized, 10s of thousands tanks and airplane at their disposal! A simple breaktrough could result in a penetration of even 100km deep. Just like in previous years, now on german soil
Karl Dönitz after Hitler commited suicide ordered that policy himself actually, he ordered that the soldiers on the Western front surrender while on the East keep fighting, hoping the West would take more land which was preferable to Communism. but by then they already agreed on how to divide Germany so the Western Allies stopped pushing and demanded Dönitz Surrender or they'll not let German civilians move West (Which they were also doing so they'll be under Western Occupation. For an admiral guy who is probably only known for unrestricted submarine warfare he was doing a smart thing.
As Wikipedia says: "In the end, Dönitz's tactics were moderately successful, enabling about 1.8 million German soldiers to escape Soviet capture. As many as 2.2 million may have been evacuated."
Berlin was not defended till the last man or day. Berlin capitulated on the 2nd of may almost a week before the total surrender of the German forces on the 7th/8th of may. Goebbels, the new chancellor asked for a ceasefire not even 24 hours after Hitler was dead, and that failed. 24 hours later he killed himself too and Berlin surrendered. The are plenty of places that held out longer with than Berlin, like Breslau (surrendered on the 6th) or Prague (11th of may) but in both cases nothing was achieved by the continued fighting, except adding to the death toll, Breslau was encircled and the Americans didnt accept the surrender of the German soldiers in Czechoslovakia and handed them over to the soviets.
I have a question about this, why did Germany fail to protect itself from the Normandy Landings and why did it fail miserably whilst they were on the brink of victory?
You are very confused. You have a lot of reading in front of you. One factor, among many, was that Nazi Germany did not protect their codes and that they were broken early in the war. And Alan Turing wasn't a lone super-hero.
Fair to mention that the surrender terms for WW1 not only caused the conditions for WW2 but also proved that surrender wouldn’t save much because the terms would be so bad.
That is unfortunately a widespread myth. Even perpetuated by some historians The harshness of terms in 1919 were not the reasons for WW2. We will be releasing a video about that soon. Significantly, the terms imposed on Germany after 1945 were much, much, much harsher than the Versailles Treaty.
@@spartacus-olsson you can smoke all the revisionist crack you want but the Treaty of Versailles absolutely did create the conditions for WW2. You are evil.
The Versailles Treaty did not "severely punish" Germany, especially compared to post-WWII measures. Territorial losses were based on self-determination, and war guilt was assigned to all Central Powers through separate treaties. Comparatively to, say, Hungary's loss of 2/3 of its territory in the Treaty of Trianon, Germany's territorial and population losses were small. Unlike Britain and France, Germany financed the war through borrowing, not taxes, leading to hyperinflation when they printed more money instead of implementing harsh measures. So, the 1923 economic crisis did not stem from reparations but from a mishandled debt crisis, despite significant U.S. support for economic recovery. Failure of poorly managed colonialism, launching and losing a war of aggression, and economic mishandling was beyond German pride to admit, leading to misplaced blame on reparations, and the antisemitic "Stab in the Back Myth”.
The belief that Germany had not truly lost WW1 was widespread. This meant that the Versailles treaty was not accepted.by a large part of the German population. This in turn provided fertile political ground for far-right and far-left political parties to exploit.
I also have seen claims that Karl Doenitz, attempting to get more of Germany surrendered to the Allies, ordered Eastern armies to fight on while the Western armies to surrender.
This is a post construction by Dönitz to make himself look better. In documented reality he was an ardent enforcer of Hitler’s orders to fight to the last drop of blood. Post war he tried, and to some degree succeeded to publicly reframe himself as a protector of the German people. His communication logs, and his orders are preserved though… they paint another more sinister picture.
Hitler was not willing to give up, to anyone. He repeatedly explained this in the last months of the war, and had already outlined it in 1925 in Mein Kampf - for Germany it was going to be victory or destruction, nothing in between.
@@WorldWarTwo Right, I didn't mean Hitler's preference, I was thinking of the generals and the fighting men. Wasn't there a general sense that the Red Army was basically going to rape and pillage their way across Germany?
@@WorldWarTwo Hitler was not willing to give up, to any one. But the wehrmacht soldiers who spent any time on the eastern front had a pretty good idea of what would happen if they surrendered to the soviets. I'm sure soldiers in the german army definitely had a preference on who they surrendered to.
So, basically, the same things happened except the decision to bail was taken early in 1918, so that collapse of the army and state happened after the armistice and not while still fighting. Save the part where the temporary collapse of the army caused Ludendorff to panic, such that by asking for an armistice, he essentially tipped the applecart on the homefront and caused the state to collapse, thus in turn undermining the army at the front which had in the interim stabilized its position for a time. Feedback loop of a fragile army and state once someone set things in motion.
Lundendorff was one of the reasons Germany lost WWI. It's a longer term, but much of his strategy, when you look at it under scrutiny went like that: A big tactical success, at the significant strategic cost, often long termed.
@oberleutnant4013 that's a lie , German/Italian & allied behaviour is the reason why things are the way they are now No colonialism & no massive European war would have meant less immigrants 🤡. I'm from an area of the UK that's 60% non white British 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. We all came here after WW2
Seriously, even now, the amount of senseless death caused by essentially Hitler and his Staff effectively throwing a tantrum (when it was and clearly had been over for a while) staggers me. Then again, their ideology was never "sensible," to begin with.
Yeah because britain causing ww2 over poland (who was massscaring ethnic germans on the border and broadcasting it) was definitely worth it. Ww2 is churchills war, not hitlers.
As is often the case, military efforts collapse not so much with one catastrophic defeat (think of the Fall of France in 1940 for Britain) as when the losing side runs out of troops. Hitler had expended his troops with his stereotypical "Hold out to the last and never retreat" orders that ensured that troops in the field would experience ultimate ruin. Late 1944 is when Germany lost its allies in Romania and Bulgaria and had pulled out of Greece, Italy had switched sides, and as the US and Britain had largely undone the Nazi victories of Spring 1940. With any logistical support, the Poles would have liberated Warsaw. Croatia and northern Italy were shaky holds for the Reich due to being honeycombed with partisans.
Wehraboos: "no, German troops are more superior in terms of morale, they could hold the Allies until September 1945, if they wanted to" Also the US: *deploying portable sun on Munich or Nuremberg in August 1945*
And the Marshall Plan was epically underestimated as doing the right thing in the aftermath of WWII versus the punitive outcome of WWI’s Versailles Treaty. You never hear about it anymore. Epic.
Extra point question: Who comprized the majority of Bolsheviks who were trying to shoot their war into power, right as the Kaiser fled? (Hint: it had a BIG impact on Hitler's views after the war.)
The Germans did collapse in summer 1944 in Operation Bagration. The Eastern Front only stabilized because the Soviets outran their supply lines and needed to consolidate, plus they were mopping up the Balkans
And as a german I'm thankful that we lost the war, don't want to live in a world people get separated by religion, skin color, sexual orientation or heritage...
Well... I come from a small town in the middle of Germany. The allies (U.S. troops, incidentally) arrived from the South, on the Saturday before Easter '45. They were greeted by Panzerfausts & machine gun fire - delivered by a mixed gang of schoolboys & retirees - the so-called "Volkssturm" (lit. "storm", rather "fury" "of the people")... luckily, one of the very last Nazi-euphemisms. WHY did they still fight, with not the slighest chance of winning? For two reasons: 1. Especially the young ones had been brainwashed by the Nazi-regime. And that was maybe the thing, the Nazis were best at. Next to killing millions of innocent civilians, whose only "fault" had been they were Jewish. In my mind, the devil wears a human face: The one of Goebbels,- the Nazi-minister of propaganda. Pervertedly, many of the methods he devised, are still in use today: They call it advertising. And yes, these mechanisms still work as efficiently as back then: They start doing so in the moment your consciousness is slipping just for a second... 2. My grandfather, for the rest of his life, would claim time & again: "We didn't know about those crimes!" (and all the other war crimes committed by Nazi soldiers and SS)... It doesn't take a university degree to realise that more than 6 million German civilians deported and killed alone, can hardly be a thing overlooked. I, for one, am thankful for the allies, whose commmitment and sacrifice allowed me, and every German generation since '45, to grow up in a peaceful and democratic country! And thank God, we are educted on our past in school. May it NEVER happen again! Bad thing: Time seems to have a tendency to make people forget... let us all NEVER make that mistake!
imagined to be fighting? Have you seen Berlin or London now? I think it's very obvious that they were actually fighting for the future of the continent.
@@I_am_nobody999 let’s see, genocide, mass manipulation, enslaving Eastern Europe, trying to justify Hitler with something 80 years in the future is just plain stupid
@@KhrisJenkins Europe isn’t being destroyed I’m not seeing cities collapse to the ground. You voted for this, you had 79 years to vote for and only now do you start blaming everyone else for your problems
I think its also important to mention the scale of ww2 in comparison to ww1. Germany was fighting several times the amount of soldiers of ww1 in that conflict towards the end. Another important factor would be the technology at the disposal of all the powers involved which allowed for much quicker advances into enemy territory (faster more well armored tanks, stronger infantry weapons, superior aircraft...)
„Germany was suffering from an illegal, war crime naval blockade which killed 600.000 civilians in Germany and was even uphold in 1919 when the war was already over for months, causing the starvation of hundred thousands more“ Just corrected the sentence. But remember, it’s just a war crime if you lose
In WW1, the army cracked much more subtly & over a longer period, made evident less through territory or victories & more through the state of the soldiers themselves, which makes perfect sense considering how the war was fought, the lines never moved very far, the troops just started to be increasingly young & old & they had less to eat, if they hadn't surrendered before totally collapsing - as they were starting to do, the troops were just too starved to keep fighting & many were jumping ship just to eat - it would've been from the trenches, gains still wouldn't have been the deciding factor. In WW2, it was more immediately visible because it was a mobile war, the Germans were actually pushed out of all of the places they pushed into rather than sitting still & withering away, & this was exacerbated by the fact that the Soviets remained in the fight, meaning they were being driven back rather quickly from 3 directions rather than sitting in place in 1.5 (the WW1 Italian front sure did kinda sorta exist)
1920's Germany under the Weihmar Republic was utterly fucking disgusting and nobody should ever be blaming them for fearing the return of something similar
Brewing revolutions in Germany? I prefer my dear neighbours to brew beer, As a Dutchman I must put my patriotism aside admitting that they brew the best beer in the world.
This question comes from tigertank06 under our video about the allies invading German territory and receiving German surrenders by the thousands. Thanks for the question!
I’ve wondered the same thing. After Stalingrad the Germans were pushed back but it wasn’t like the dam had broken. In 1944 they can’t put up any resistance at all. What’s the biggest difference?
❤️🪖
If something better than unconditional surrender would have been on the table maybe the would have ended the war much earlier.
You forgot to mention that in 1918 german communists uprised against awful work and living conditions, made by capitalists.
This is UNDOUBTEDLY what has to happen to Russia today.
The thought of the Russians having the TEMERITY to sit down "and negotiate"??? No WAY. They have to be defeated, then sat down and told the way it's gonna be.
So to summarize:
In 1918, they surrendered before they collapsed. In 1945 they kept going until the conpletely collapsed.
This collapse scenario only reflects the western front, the troops facing USSR troops in the east kept fighting. Units that collapsed tended to be in the rear and would go west to surrender to the UK & US forces rather than Soviet troops.
@@DraigBlackCatso?
Ehh I’d argue they had a total collapse in WW1 100 days offensive not a single day where the allies didn’t advance the high seas fleet mutinied
The 2 main reasons for surrender was the naval mutiny and they didn’t want to fight in Germany because they thought it would be destroyed like they had destroyed Belgium and France
@@kingcrafteroderderfahradtu7331 What isn't hard to understand is how the German Army collapsed in 1945. What's shocking is how the German Army kept fighting so effectively throughout 1944.
@DrCruel in 1944 the German Amry sufferd it's worst defeat yet with the Soviet Bagration Offensive. Later in the year they wasted their last reserves and ressources in a rather sensless offensive during the Battle of the bulge. I would'nt say thats very effective.
There is a flip side to this.
Hitler encouraged and promoted the idea, held by many Germans, that they had not been defeated in 1918. They had signed an “armistice,” an agreement meant to give them a breathing space while an honorable peace was negotiated. Germany was then “stabbed in the back by Jews and communists,” at Versailles. Taking no chances on a repeat, the Allies agreed that they would only accept unconditional surrender, in 1945.
I've always been torn. The Germans had been defeated on the battlefield in 1918- at this point primarily by British empire forces with an important assist from the US, and not forgetting the overwhelming role the French army had been playing in wearing them down 1914-17, and still played in 1918- and they were retreating. Their last viable offensives had failed, and they were retreating and would have kept doing so. Allied logistical superiority was also finally telling. That brief tiny chance they could have broken Allied morale in early 1918 had passed for good. The arrival of overwhelming new US forces in 1919 would have meant the invasion of Germany. The victory in the east had proved to be insufficient to redress any of the troop or resource needs in the short term.
Still, they had stabilized the front and were holding better than in December 1944.
So, not least from historical patriotism myself, I always emphasize the Allies had in fact won the war in battle. It was not a war without victory and the troops had not died for nothing in the end.
Still, were I German I'd still b*tch about the communists and social democrats and the revolutions of November, not to say the sailors and soldiers mutinying. Political, social, and state collapse on the home front DID indisputably put the German army in an untenable position and the German negotiators in an equally untenable position at both the armistice talks and later at Versailles. Without that, maybe they didn't have to agree to an armistice that preemptively put their armed forces in hock and meant an inevitable punitive peace for which the Allies had no incentive to moderate.
Still criminal to blame it on the Jews, though. Almost all of those men were not remotely Jewish.
The total war Germany started might be part of why an unconditional surrender was warranted.
@@randomobserver8168 My takeaway is that the Germans had proven themselves to be the ultimate “sore losers,” never willing to admit defeat. Unconditional surrender was demanded out of necessity.
Except that it wasn't an "idea", but more of a myth.
@@randomobserver8168 The allies could and did only win WW1 by starving the Germans out not by fighting on the battlefield.
Hitler would refuse to ever negotiate unless it was on his terms . He called the Kaiser a coward for surrendering but the Kaiser knew if Germany kept fighting their country would be obliterated . That’s why he himself agreed to step down . Hitler was going to sacrifice every last man woman and child then surrender .
Hey pro
Nice seeing you here, and you are right. May I ask why you have 155 at the end of your username?
The Kaiser wasn't in charge of Germany by the end of WWI. They talk about it on this channel.
@@averagegamer6912Why does the 155 at the end of their username matter? I might as well ask you why you have the number 6912 at the end of your username. They're both random numbers lol
Are you guys numbered asteroids? Sorry for rapid fire questions, but I'm a human, and also see parallels with conscious cells or entities or AI deceivers, or something that has been present, multi faceted, and confusing, seemingly like a ever-changing community of interactive, vague, friends enemies, hostiles, abusers, etc... never in physical form, just recognized by seeing their content that involves my environment. This whole time they have been present. My status has gone from good, to ok, to struggle, to bad, to desperate, to survival mode, to barely hanging on by a thread. Confused the whole time. I don't know what is behind this situation, but I suspect science and experiments, maybe cell cloning recreation and a reincarnation and repeat of an extremely unpleasant traumatic existence. I would rather burn myself up in an internal blaze and not leave 1 viable cell than to risk my consciousness or anything made from me have to do this again. And I didn't get cooperation, Truth, understanding, consideration, from the surveillance. Should I consider myself a country? A nation? An experiment? I relate with the 1918 and 1945 situations. If I understood what was happening I might have had a chance to not run myself into the grips of death with absolutely nothing to lose. I'm just trying to understand still, but the perspective is part of it.
In 1918 the Germans also had the "advantage" of how rapid penetrations of their lines would be slowed down by limitations in transportation and communications. More than one Canadian breakthrough was stopped not by strong resistance but by the thrust itself becoming too disorganized to continue pushing against even limited resistance.
That's not true though the Germans were being crushed during the hundred good days campaign and were constantly losing ground and being pushed back into Germany. To make matters worse, the Navy mutinied and there was a revolution in Germany because of the blockade.
So in short, their military was rapidly losing men and ground which caused their Navy to revolt which inspired their starving populace to also revolt. They had no advantage in 1918 and had lost, they just had the common sense to surrender before they were obliterated. Their army was nearly routed in just 3 months and their soldiers had lost all morale. They were collapsing and had the common sense to give up as they could no longer keep fighting.
@@tylersmith3139 I think you missed my point: It wasn't a crystallization of German resistance that stopped breakthroughs, it was that deep breakthroughs were pretty much impossible to carry out. That's why you had the developing cycle of:
- German lines smashed open.
- Attacking forces surge into the gap chasing retreating Germans.
- Attacking forces outrun their lines of supply and communication.
- The time it takes to deal with German stragglers and rear guards increases.
- The main body of the retreating Germans, who are moving back into established supply and communications networks, outpaces the attacking forces.
- The attacking force ends the breakthrough to reestablish a state of control and supply.
- The Germans establish a new line.
There was a constant hope, even by generals like Currie, that the next breakthrough would see a return to full maneuver warfare but it really wasn't possible given the nature of technology in 1918.
(N.B. I put scare quotes around advantage for a reason.)
The same thing kinda happened to the Germans too in 1918 earlier in the year during their Spring Offensive if I remember correctly right? the Stormtroopers punched hard and deep but sustained overwhelming casualties and the regular infantry couldnt properly consolidate the ground gained along with efficient supply lines not being able to develop because of the depth of the breakthrough so the ground was lost as quickly as it was gained
Not true. The British had developed bite and hold tactics. They would gain ground and then stop to solidify control of the ground they gained, and then get more ground. It was organized and methodical.
@cooldudicus7668 Those tactics weren't being used in the hundred days campaign because the Germans were in no state to go back on the offensive. Instead there was an effort to try and trigger a total collapse and a return to open maneuver warfare.
"-- How did you go bankrupt? | -- Well, firstly gradually, then suddenly." (Scott Fitzgerald).
This quote applies so well to so many situations.
So many little details in there, too: Manpower - they were left with young boys and the elderly. Food distribution - food was plentiful for the Germans when they were taking it from occupied countries, but when they were driven out of those occupied areas, less food to go around. lack of fuel.
If you look at Manpower they would have had enough but with no fighting abilities at all. Its often said that in 45 only children and 80 years old were fighting which is not true.
@@akronym4439 Men of the desired age ranges were seriously depleted, and with the Soviets and western Allied forces advancing into Germany, they were rounding up boys and pulling men out of old age homes. But you are right, they did have some of them in the fight, too.
To quote John Green - it's like falling asleep very slowly then all at once
To be fair, thanks to the italians and the completely lost southern front (A-H was out), that was about to happen to Germany already in 1918. And even before the further divisions from the US came for the americans and the rest of the Entente on the West.
1945 was definitely the worst and the imperial could still fight, but soon it would've looked like kind of similar to the nazis in 1945 with that front there, despite the East being solved.
I think the more appropriate question here is "How in the hell did they survive until 1945?" I mean, they lost their track as soon as the summer of 1943, it's a miracle they still kicking in 1945.
They had a lot of land to lose at that point.
They survived by looting the nations that they conquered, which is why they had to keep expanding. I've seen it called a 'vampire economy,' and that fits. If they'd been prevented from taking Czechoslovakia in 1938, they could have collapsed much sooner, but the Allies both didn't know that, and weren't ready militarily.
@@princecharon it is also called a warmachine economy, where to keep the economy going and stable a nation constantly goes to war and stays at war.
Like everyone else did as well @@princecharon
@@marcogiannik No, not like everyone else did.
Bro lookin like the Kaiser 😭
stop getting so emotional
Kaiser explains.
Something worth remembering: in the autumn of 1918, the German Army was beaten in the field and the prolonged fighting would only lead to collapse.
The Hundred Days offensive was marked by one Allied victory after another, with more and more German soldiers surrendering. There were no reserves, no miracles, no aces in the sleeve for the Germans in the final weeks of the war.
And oh, let's not forget: by late October, Germany was alone on the battlefield, so the strategic situation could only get worse for them, and fast.
The German people were starving fast. If the war didn't end, allowing in supplies and preparing for former troops to get back in the farm fields the entire country would have been dead in late 1919. But that didn't fit the Hitler narrative of "you are victims" and "I'll make you great again".
Yeah, Germany was already beaten on the field and any chance of them winning or even having a stalemate was long gone. They surrendered then to get a better deal which they did get as Germany stayed intact.
You’re forgetting that with the Russian Revolution and Russia’s withdrawal from the conflict, vast numbers of men and material were freed up to be transferred to the Western front. It’s easy to sit here and say ‘oh Germany was on the brink of collapse’ but do not forget, the generals had been saying that for years.
The fight didnt happen on german soil so the army was not beaten.
@@Sturmjuergen44 that's not how it works.the army was beaten and asked for an armistice as it was not able to stem the tide of the Allied army in any way.
It should also be mentioned that in 1945, large parts of the German army were still holding out at places like northern Italy and the Baltic, so these troops could not be used to defend Germany itself.
@ReneHartmann & in Norway/Denmark even until the end of the war
@@cryptocsguy9282 also around Greece
@@OperatorMax1993 Oh really ? I didn't know that , I wonder how that worked logistically
No fuel had a lot to do with it. Without fuel, supplies can’t move to the lines where they’re needed and without supplies the troops can’t fight.
They ran out of fuel, factories and men. All at the approximate same time.
Well all those factors goes hand in hand- if you lack fuel , you are out of transportation of materials which leads to factories not being able to produce anything which leads to soldiers lacking equipment (guns , ammunition etc)
...and German territory. 1918 100% held, May 1945 20% held. The difference is obvious. Stupid question.
Fuel but not factories. Their arms production was actually at it's peak at the end of the war
I doubt it just because the number of factories that were destroyed/ damaged by the allied bombing , lack of quality materials and skilled workers, you can see this just by looking at photos of German soldiers at the last stage of war, many of them having captured weapons or cheap versions of original designs
Even more critically, the railroads were destroyed by 1945. Factory output actually dramatically increased in 1944, despite Allied bombings against factories are factory workers (residential areas), but collapsed once the Allies realised targeting infrastructure was a better choice.
Also the german army was collapsing when the armistsce was signed. The hundred days offensive was gaining more ground in a week than was seen in years. The war ended before there was no army left, but it was well on its way to getting there.
I’ve not picked up any literature on the topic, but I have to imagine the mind of a German soldier (and civilian) in late 1944 and 1945 was a constant race of thoughts.
I'd imagine it depends a lot on if you were an unfortunate conscript or a diehard believer
@@mattfantastic9969 Though comparing it the soldat in 1918 probably be a difference of pride versus basic survival.
@@mattfantastic9969 my grandfather was a volunteer for both world wars, the difference for ww2 was he fought for his fallen brothers of ww1 and the people of his country not for Hitler.
@@alexipestov7002 In 1918 both German Army and people were starving and the Army was in constant retreat against strengthening allied forces. The difference was between realism and fantasy and there would probably have been a similar 6 month period as between the Bulge battle and disintegration.
@@wigglepedia8706 You can tell yourself that, but at the end of the day he still fought on the side of the Nazis and to push Hitler's agenda.
They were burnt out from taking speed for years
It's not the question why they collapsed so quickly in 1945, but why only in 1945. The Wehrmacht had been shattered time and time again, the last major victory having been the counteroffensive on Kharkov. Millions had gone into captivity, entire divisions, Corps and even Armies ceased to exist. They had lost nearly all gains by late 1944 and made it all the way to March 1945 before everything started collapsing
The Nazi leadership facing war-crimes charges might have been part of why they didn't surrender.
Also the allies declared in 1943 they would not accept anything short of unconditional surrender.
I think a reason they may have collapsed quickly in 45 is some of the pointless offensives hitler order near the end just consumed such massive resources men and materials.
Another thing to note is that by 1918, the German Army still had some strength as the eastern front with Russia had closed. Which is why they still had all of the control over Germany and even parts of Belgium. But in 1944, Germany (even Berlin) had already been damaged by air raids.
Hitler would never have begun to consider an armistice
he actually wanted to ally with britain and was previously allied with the soviets
@@JeremiahColter The Molotov-Ribentropp pact was a non-aggression pact, not an alliance
@oliversherman2414 still, he wanted to ally with British (it says so several times in Mein Kämpf), and he would have accepted a treaty that kept him in power in 1944 and 45. He tried to negotiate peace with Britain in 1940 and 41 several times. It was actually the Allies who decided only to accept unconditional surrender, as they wanted the Nazis completely gone because of the awful things they had done.
@@TDP-t7o Maybe, but he also thought of Britain as being below Germany. So Britain would be seen as more of a client state than an ally. And, speaking of Mein Kampf, one of the things Hitler kept rambling about was conquering the east for "Lebensraum" and wiping out the Slavic population to make way for German colonisation. So, yeah, the Molotov-Ribentropp pact was a non-aggression pact. There was never any room for an alliance with Russia in Hitler's mind, given he thought their ideology was a threat to his and he thought of the Russian people as "subhuman"
@@oliversherman2414 Not true Hitler didnt see Britain as below Germany he actually stated pretty clearly he saw them as equals and as essentially Germans as well, industrious, innovative etc even offered to GB Germany's assistance if they ever were attacked in an early peace offer during the war. Hitler also never spoke of Lebensraum it doesnt exist anywhere with him quoting it. Somewhat a commonly held revisionist point.
The question should be “ How the hell did the German Army manage to “push” on till 1945.”
Some i allways wanted to know: How did they pay their soldiers at the end?
In wwi or wwii..?
The US had bonuses for their veterens, from what I remember.
Printing press
Add 0 to,the value
I remember reading about how the Continental Army, in the American War of Independence, had the radical idea of actually paying their soldiers a decent wage. It was a good idea, and deserved to work, except that the continental dollar deflated faster than it could be printed. The situation got so bad that even the ink for the printers became in sort supply, and some of the dollar bills came out blank. Wags of the time quipped that, soon, the blank bills would be worth more than the printed ones.
If you’re referring to the Germans in ww2, then they often didn’t, hence the mass surrendering. The last scraps of the army were sufficiently indoctrinated Wehrmacht units that believed that the Russians were going to do to Germany what they did to Russia, and what was left of the SS.
bro's literally the reincarnation of wilhelm ii
“Slowly, then all of a sudden”
You can be the most powerful country ever. But if you've made enemies with almost the entire world, you're doomed. Have a nice day you all, greetings from Germany
Something some of us remind each other here in the US of. Not entirely common, but enough. You're never too big to fall, and it's best not to forget that. Cheers from 9 hours away!
@@TheGoddamnBacon ✌️
Btw: I love your profile name 😄
@@robert48719 thanks man!
@erichhartmann3960no, they’re just someone with common sense. unlike you
@erichhartmann3960 thank God -NO!!! These are barbaric monsters who make up their own rules and declare anyone as their enemies they like to. In my country they are supported by the current government! They are literally getting paid lots of money for bludgeoning down random people who disagree with them. And I am completely disgusted by these moving things (I will not call them humans 😂) . But yeah, this is my opinion on the Antifa. I am certainly not one of them.... What are your thoughts on my answer? I'd really appreciate a reply, because I think you might have misjudged me. Anyways have a nice day
Simple, they ran out of “stuff” and the bosses wouldn’t let them quit. The Allies, mainly from the U.S. had lots of “stuff”.
Or the fact the USSR destroyed the entire Eastern front, resulting in Germany losing their best armies, millions of soldiers, and a lot of resources during operation Bagration and ended with the German army being unable to fight and was forced to retreat.
The allies held as long as they did due to USA and their lend lease
The German army fully collapsed because the USSR destroyed germanys strongest and most professional armies and became impossible for the Germans to fight back effectively as they lost their hold on the entire continent after the Soviet operation Bagration
@@slavic_viking9638 they did, but 17.5 million tons of U.S. aid in the form of equipment and food speed the fight up. “Stuff” wins wars. Look at all the logistics you need to support one warfighter.
@@slavic_viking9638red army only won because of the lend lease as well. In an avid red army fan but facts are facts you don’t change them because you don’t like it. It is a fact that the red army would have collapsed and been obliterated like in the initial stages of operation Barbarossa had the Americans not provided a blank check basically.
@@imranreiaz-wk9lv all these claims on "the lend lease won the Eastern Front" begin to crumble completely when you actually research the Lend Lease process and complications of it's logistics. All this stuff wasn't teleported into the USSR immediately, y'know. And amount of shipments was pretty much meager and only slowly increasing as the war went by. One shipment usually lasts 6 months until it could be used by the troops - this time is like an eternity at that war.
Red Army was receiving only crumbles during it's most crucial times, and after completing the evacuation process and restoration of it's industry, it started to rise on it's feet steadily and turned the war even before the massive flow of Lend Lease goods begun (in 1944). It sure helped to save a lot of Soviet lives and end the war early, but Soviets definitely put Germans on a stalemate largely by themselves and probably were even able to win the war later if they purchased important goods from the West for gold which they had in abundance thanks to Magnitogorsk mining complex that was created before the war just for such a case. In short - Lend Lease largely helped to finish off the Third Reich, but Wehrmacht was broken by Soviet industry and soldiers, not matter how unsightly it may seem to you.
Logistics win wars you say, so instead of looking up "final numbers" of stuff that arrived mostly in 1945, look up in details what, how much and WHEN it was delivered.
@@imranreiaz-wk9lv if facts are facts, you'd know most of that lend-lease didn't arrive until well after the tide of the war had turned on the Eastern Front. The Red Army would have only collapsed if God himself willed it so without American lend-lease.
I feel like this explanation leaves out the fact that the Germans decided that they would rather have most of their empire occupied by the western allies who would potentially allow them to continue their way of life than the Soviets who would upend the entire nazi order and get revenge for the war of extermination Germany waged against them. So they held out viciously in the east while they basically allowed the western front to collapse at a certain point. You can say Hitler would have rather had Germany completely destroyed than surrender, but by 1945 his generals and closest allies (especially the SS) were operating against his wishes to surrender to the western allies thinking they stood a better chance of avoiding mass executions. Not for nothing that after the war the west german legal system was RAMPANT with "former" nazis.
Lack of oil for fuel, lack of air force, lack of friends, a bad dictatorship that believed in bureaucratic competition rather than cooperation. And they were evil.
THEY WERE EVIL!!!!
Surely a major factor is that in 1945 the allies demanded unconditional surrender, whereas 1918 had (nominally) been an armistice. The allies in WW2 wanted to prevent a re-run of the post-war situation from WW1 and so demanded that Germany be completely defeated, whilst the Germans had previously seen how an armistice could turn into a diktat.
The unconditional surrender was offered after Hitlers death im pretty sure, and the government that remained was under the German admiral Karl donitz whose remaining land was held in Denmark and northern Germany so they accepted.
True.
@@oCharmanderNo, you are pretty wrong.
and also the fact that hitler was willing to put every last man, woman, and child between him and the allies and soviets. he wouldn’t have unconditionally surrendered no matter what, and he certainly wouldn’t have let his subordinates negotiate that
@@winterbliss4459 Why should Germany follow the West's demand of "unconditional surrender"? That's laughable at best.
In WW1 the Germans made a peace treaty with the Russians and sent all those forces to the Western front.
During WW2, they kept fighting everybody. Russian, Greece, Italy, Norway, France. They were fighting almost 360 degrees.
I wouldn´t say the collapsed badly, considering the situation I´d say they managed NOT collapsing for a while longer than they should have
I was not ready for how glorious that mustache is
It’s almost like fighting 100 countries at once is hard….
Not that they did the same when fighting the Soviets
They fucked around and finded out
In 1918 the German army was on rapid retreat along a fairly short (compared to 1945) front line. There were no technological capabilities to hit the German rear in any distinguished way and the eastern front was fairly stable.
In 1945 the German army was severly under attack from at least 4 seperate fronts (Holland- Belgium - France, Italy, Yuguslavia and the entire front with the USSR) plus holding substantial garrisons in Norway, Curland (mainly Latvia) and various locations in Greece, France and the Channel Islands which were ineffective due to that. The German rear was constantly attacked and by March 1945 the ammunition and military hardware production had collapsed and many formations just had to consume whatever they had or could find around them.
I'm guessing it collapsed due to the allies attacking before the Atlantic wall was completed and the Soviets outnumbering them. Running out of oil probably didn't help either.
The exhausted their men, material, supplies, infrastructures you name it. They literally had nothing left, they were enlisted old men and boys by 1945.
As a German, it makes me very, very sad that those in power in Germany at the time were so defiant. I think I once heard that Hitler wanted to punish “the Aryan race” for the defeat by destroying the country. In the bunker, Hitler came up with some kind of army to defeat the excessive number of Soviet soldiers... (Let's be honest, it was actually clear from the start that a country like Germany would not be able to compete for long against a country with such a large army - but back then they thought they could take on anyone...) In addition, an excessive number of soldiers died on all sides between 1944 and 1945. Millions of soldiers could certainly have been saved if the war had simply ended earlier. There would probably have been fewer cities in ruins. (It's also sad how many beautiful buildings from the imperial era were destroyed by the bombs).
As a German you should go to Berlin or Hamburg or another of your beautiful cities and then apologise to your fuhrer for doubting his vision.
It wasn't Hitlers choice to make. The Allies were explicitly that they wouldn't stop until Germany was completely subjugated and condition put in place to prevent them from becoming a major power again. Some in the Allied governments were even advocating ethnic cleansing, which they ended up doing in some parts.
Bro I'm half German and half Jewish and even I'm pissed at how leftist and liberal and woke Germany is now.
Against large armies* and an army supported by the US* with the prehemptive strike of 1941, the soviets were collapsing. Maybe it would've been tougher in a confrontation were both armies in the east were prepared and fully.
The problem was fighting the US, UK and USSR, especially the USSR and US.
Excessive number of soviet soldiers? What? Nazi Germany and it's allies had MORE troops throughout most of the war, the key part is troops themselves - where english, american or german would surrender, soviet will fight till their death, even if all they have are a knife and a Stalin poster. This was the critical part of why Germany took over France in one fell swoop, but was boggled down in USSR from day one.
If it was up to the kaiser, ww1 would have continued. Iirc, in exile the kaiser was quoted to say, "it was only a flesh wound"
They sort of didnt. The Wehrmact of post March 1945 had far more cohesion than MOST other historical examples of forces facing a total defeat against a much stronger or technologically superior opponent.
By comparison, arab armies fighting the Israelis or Western Coalitions basically evaporated (even with numerical superiority in some cases), large swaths of chinese armies also faltered in the face of numerically inferior japanese troops, or how nations facing Germany between 1939 and 1941 also suffered total breakdowns despite on paper having lots of fighting capabilities remaining.
There was a collective understanding amonst the Wehrmact that the Soviets needed to be delayed as much as possible and that even though the war was clearly going to be lost, still spilling blood to delay that inevitable outcome had a purpose (primarily evacuation of civilians westwards, but also fanatical hatred for this particular enemy)
Absolutely. And more than the nazi and SS part, the soviet presence (and the instead positive Allied presence, because they were humanes) did it all for that cohesion and battle continuation. At least for the troops in the Eastern Front.
It took the allies until July 1944 to attack the german fuel production.
Fuel had been sparse before, so it is strange they did not do that earlier. Giant plants that could not be relocated.
Within 3 months, fuel production was down to 30%.
At the end of the war, it was down to 3%.
Makes it more understandable why there are so many images of intact, abandoned german vehicles.
Why the Battle of the Bulge faltered after a few days (beside it clearing up so that the allied planes could start again and shoot at anything that moved).
Lost of Romanian.airfields in mid-1944 restricted German mobility. So many abandoned panzers and Luftwaffe aircraft. Somehow the U-Boats kept going to the end.
Germany surrender a day before Chuck Morris has born, they so scared 😅😅😅
By 1945 the bulk of the german army were young kids ages 12 to 18
The correct answer is just 'logistics'. American air power, particularly fighter planes. After escorting the bombers, extended fuel ranges let them roam the countryside shooting up any vehicle that moved. This phenomenon didn't exist in WWI. In WWII, it also caused the lack of food and medical supplies to the German concentration camps that led to all those beloved films of English and American bulldozers pushing the piles of corpses that resulted from these shortages. Yes, those in the camps were in meager diets to begin with so it took little to push them over the edge, but the push was definitely applied quite effectively from the air.
The bridge at Remagen really accelerated the Nazi's downfall. They were destroying every bridge over the Rhine, where they would establish a new defendable barrier that would allow them to regroup (at least partly). But the US 9th armored advanced too quickly, and reached the bridge at remagen before it was destroyed. After capturing that bridge, the Allies had secured a supply line directly into the heart of Nazi Germany, shortening the war
Could it be that the Allies who won the war on land, on the sea, below the sea, and in air...on hundreds of fronts from the Arctic to the Equator to South Atlantic, out fought the Germans on a spectacular scale? That, unlike the Russians, the Allies fought with intelligent tactics, under competent leadership, and roundly defeated them in 11 months from the D-Day Landings to the surrender? Supported by the defeat in North Africa and Sicily Landings in 1943 that attacked German's soft underbelly--as Churchill put it (And tried to do in WWI).
So many wehraboos and russia sympathisers ignore this. Thanks for mentioning it. (Russian tactics weren't too stupid, that's more of a hollywood myth, but ultimately you are correct)
@@goober-ey7mx Stupid no in fact, just uncaring.
The German empire knew they would lose and kept their composure.
whereas the third reich just kept going until they collapsed.
The made war on the world. The world fought back. They didn't have the resources or capacity to wage war on that scale indefinitely.
uh huh, who declared war on who buddy.
@@mukistuff1049 germany on poland lol
@@mukistuff1049 Germany on Poland
That's actually not what happened
Surrounded , out of oil , supplies and weapons about gone . That's the reason
Where did Goring hide out until he surrendered to the US ? All the others topped themselves.
He drove across the country. HE pulled up to allied lines in her mercediez
Deluded addict by that time. Somehow thought the Western allies would put him in charge of a puppet government. The allies decided on no Puppet government and direct military rule. Which Britain couldn't really afford. Britain lost WW II too.
In 1918 the brakes on the car worked before they Thelma and Louise'd the nation.
Next time, they removed the brakes and the steering so 1945 was far more cinematic.
Loosing a world war sudden death cage match with the USA, UK, and USSR tends to do that.
Ticking off the British Empire, US and Soviet Union all at the same time was never going to work out well for them. They were always doomed to fail.
To simplify: the German army in 1945 was a shadow of its pre war self. The war had completely destroyed the infrastructure that supported it(factories, railroads, supply lines etc) and after the Invasion of Russia the German state just could provide the man power to support it. Also by the end of the war the spirit of the german people was effectively broken as the country itself laid in ruins.
Like several other comments suggested, it's baffling that they didn't immediately collapse in '43. I'd however like to posit a different reason.
Because of the Fascist tendency where 2 + 2 can equal 5, accurately keeping track of all disparate troops, materiel, ammunition, and other inventory is rendered effectively impossible. Nobody, not even HQ, can give an accurate accounting of what is where, how much of anything remains, nor whether a transport/convoy in transit is STILL in transit or was actually captured/destroyed en route. Projection of "Strength" is of the utmost importance, and since nobody wants to be the messenger delivering such bad news to leadership, they just...don't.
That being said, the Nazi army was more than likely far closer to collapse than it appeared externally, and internally (their projection of strength not only confuses their enemies, but their own forces as well), but because nobody could know exactly what they did or did not have, they assumed they were still "strong".
I hope this made sense. It's not an easy task trying to rationalize an irrational ideology, like Fascism (what Nazism is based upon)...
This is true. When the whole picture became clear towards the End, the allied were actually surprised to see in what a Bad statw the German Military actually was, despite appearing so strong all the time.
@@muscledavis5434 _EDIT: I just love how UA-cam unilaterally decides which comments to allow, and which to suppress, without any notification to anybody they're doing so!_
*_(Switch from sorting comments by Top Comments, to Newest, and you'll see all of the yeeted comments.)_*
One might think it intuitive that merely appearing strong and intimidating is enough to make that true, but it does little to keep forces fed or clothed, nor can it relieve beleaguered troops in need of reinforcement. Not to mention replenishment of exhausted ammunition or materiel supplies.
It's figurative cardboard cutouts of those things, in place of the genuine article. IOUs, as it were.
2+2=5 was born and became famous with communism/fascism (which was born later)
But fascism isn't irrational? It's whole point is "everything within the state" - people give up their individuality for the sake of state interests. It's the same as saying Hitler was a madman - he wasn't, that's what makes his ideology so scary and dangerous.
@@kindlingking In fact that communist and fascist's commandement is abhorrent
Kitler and his terrible decisions
And this is why no political figures should be seen as gods, or as friends, or as heroes, because this is what happens, and has happened so many times before.
They had over 13,000,000 soldiers coming from east and west, no army would hold in that pressure
This is why you dont want dictators
Or coloniser like Britain, France, USA
@@RkRk-xu1ww
I mean britain abolished slavery in africa.
Which is part of the reason why they could conquer it
Espcially someone like Fernand Lopez.
@@unowno123 and Hitler love animals. If You have one good habbit then it doesn't justify other bad habits.
@@RkRk-xu1ww
comparing loving animals versus ending slavery is pretty wild yo
britian was 100 times better than mustache man
jsut because someone wins, doesn't make them bad
As a Russian, and former Soviet citizen, I can Tell you why. 27 MILLION souls just like I am ended up not returning to their homes. Men, mothers, children, granpas, and grannies. That's why
I'm once again asking what moustache wax you use
Captain Fawcett’s Mustache Wax - regular hardness for basic form, and then ‘expeditionary strength’ for final form and hold.
@@spartacus-olsson thanks much!
Hitler and those around him only saw the gallows while the Kaiser had hope.
Wait, wasn't there already a short about the assassination of Ante Pavelic? Now I'm seeing this one instead of the other, not that I'm complaining but I'm a little confused 😅
I saw both but when I clicked on the Pavelic one it came up blank, so I'm thinking TimeGhost said something that YT didn't like.
There was actually a slight error with the video that we missed! We want to correct it and this one was ready to go, so rather than having no short today this one was released instead.
@@WorldWarTwo glad to hear it was you and not YT again.👍
@@korbell1089 As a Serbian my first thought was that our graceful Balkan peoples, occupying several parallel universes, each with their own history, have already turned the short into a s***fest. I'm glad I was wrong, at least for the time being.
Manpower and organization matters. Kids and old men on the front lines fighting with leftover and broken equipment.
Germany also knew what would happen to them if they surrendered to the Soviet’s, they’d be utterly destroyed and much worse treatment would happen to them. After all they didn’t want to surrender to the Soviet’s but rather the British and French. However Russia didn’t want that and they were much closer to Berlin and beating the Germans than any other allied country so Germany did everything in its power to hold off the soviets in hopes Britain and France would beat them to Berlin.
@@Snaxolotl71 Because they were like the nazis. Plus they wanted to exploit the resources too.
Instead the Allies brought actual peace and also future in the theatre/Europe
@@Snaxolotl71USSR was a good nation, BUT only after Stalin died. If USSR didnt have this crazy maniac dictator. USSR would be a super power to this day and probably be democratic. Oh well....
@@Snaxolotl71 Bro, i was born in Russia. I know what i am talking about. Communism in 1910s and 1920s had a real chance to establish itself in the whole world, it was really popular. But Stalin ruined everything, he murdered so many people, established himself as an absolute unquestioned dictator which went compleatly against everything Lenin and Socialism stood for. His actions are responsible for a rappid decline of the popularity of socialism in the world. He ruined it all.
I cant believe how anyone can defend him. Mygreat Grandfather and Grandmother were put in "working" camps because Stalin felt like it. Only the great grandmother survived. The whole family was deported to siberia.
He didnt care about communism or any other idiology, he just saw the chance and used it to succed Nicolaus II and become a tsar, an emporer himself. I strongly believe that if Hitler didnt invade USSR, there would be another civil war.
It did not collapsed, they simply ran out of man power, fule and arnament, then the allies simply ran them over
To summarize, the allies (mostly France) showed in 1918 and especially france's invasion of 1923 made it clear that surrendering would result in a very punitive peace. Meaning that it is better to fight till the end, as some miracle could exhaust your enemies, and you will not get any leniency for surrendering anyway. France will make sure of that.
Yes this point was absolutely glossed over. Germans had signed armistice in hopes of an end to the great war and return to peace. they had the worst economic suffering and the Black disgrace foisted upon them. I can quite see why they thought surrender was not an option in 1945, the Allies had shown their hand in regards to defeated nations.
another thing was that Germany didn't start WW1 and still got unbearable conditions in the armistice of Versailles.
There was no reason to believe that anything would change for the better if they surrendered early in WW2 which they started
Because they were spread too thin. They were fighting too many fronts.
They got roflstomped way earlier that 45 by the Soviets. They kept going because they knew what kind of mercy they would get after their attrocities and genocide on the land of USSR and eastern Europe.
They were defeated by a combined allied effort. Lend-Lease allowing the soviets to have any success. And the soviets being barbarians would ruin all of europe.
Not way earlier. In 1944.
The ussr committed worse atrocities to their own citizens
In effect, they put their money where their mouth was on the “better dead than red” principle
The fact that they kept running the death camps till the very end rather than putting the resources to fighting the war show's how crazy they were
W
Mythology. The allies didn't find any of those camps.
Germany ran out of fuel by 1945 while allies had largest invasion force in history from east and west, highly motorized, 10s of thousands tanks and airplane at their disposal! A simple breaktrough could result in a penetration of even 100km deep. Just like in previous years, now on german soil
They were still defending Berlin, to the last day, and evacuating to the west, away from the Red Army.
That seems like a pretty good way to collapse.
Karl Dönitz after Hitler commited suicide ordered that policy himself actually, he ordered that the soldiers on the Western front surrender while on the East keep fighting, hoping the West would take more land which was preferable to Communism. but by then they already agreed on how to divide Germany so the Western Allies stopped pushing and demanded Dönitz Surrender or they'll not let German civilians move West (Which they were also doing so they'll be under Western Occupation.
For an admiral guy who is probably only known for unrestricted submarine warfare he was doing a smart thing.
As Wikipedia says: "In the end, Dönitz's tactics were moderately successful, enabling about 1.8 million German soldiers to escape Soviet capture. As many as 2.2 million may have been evacuated."
They were horrible at holding the line against the Soviets in the east of Germany
Berlin was not defended till the last man or day. Berlin capitulated on the 2nd of may almost a week before the total surrender of the German forces on the 7th/8th of may. Goebbels, the new chancellor asked for a ceasefire not even 24 hours after Hitler was dead, and that failed. 24 hours later he killed himself too and Berlin surrendered.
The are plenty of places that held out longer with than Berlin, like Breslau (surrendered on the 6th) or Prague (11th of may) but in both cases nothing was achieved by the continued fighting, except adding to the death toll, Breslau was encircled and the Americans didnt accept the surrender of the German soldiers in Czechoslovakia and handed them over to the soviets.
Great video, thank you, 🇬🇧👍👍👍👊.
They thought 1918 was a mistake. 1945 proved that it wasn't.
Proved it was*
I have a question about this, why did Germany fail to protect itself from the Normandy Landings and why did it fail miserably whilst they were on the brink of victory?
You are very confused. You have a lot of reading in front of you.
One factor, among many, was that Nazi Germany did not protect their codes and that they were broken early in the war.
And Alan Turing wasn't a lone super-hero.
Fair to mention that the surrender terms for WW1 not only caused the conditions for WW2 but also proved that surrender wouldn’t save much because the terms would be so bad.
That is unfortunately a widespread myth. Even perpetuated by some historians The harshness of terms in 1919 were not the reasons for WW2. We will be releasing a video about that soon. Significantly, the terms imposed on Germany after 1945 were much, much, much harsher than the Versailles Treaty.
@@spartacus-olsson you can smoke all the revisionist crack you want but the Treaty of Versailles absolutely did create the conditions for WW2. You are evil.
The Versailles Treaty did not "severely punish" Germany, especially compared to post-WWII measures. Territorial losses were based on self-determination, and war guilt was assigned to all Central Powers through separate treaties. Comparatively to, say, Hungary's loss of 2/3 of its territory in the Treaty of Trianon, Germany's territorial and population losses were small.
Unlike Britain and France, Germany financed the war through borrowing, not taxes, leading
to hyperinflation when they printed more money instead of implementing harsh measures. So, the 1923 economic crisis did not stem from reparations but from a mishandled debt crisis, despite significant U.S. support for economic recovery.
Failure of poorly managed colonialism, launching and losing a war of aggression, and economic mishandling was beyond German pride to admit, leading to misplaced blame on
reparations, and the antisemitic "Stab in the Back Myth”.
The belief that Germany had not truly lost WW1 was widespread. This meant that the Versailles treaty was not accepted.by a large part of the German population. This in turn provided fertile political ground for far-right and far-left political parties to exploit.
@@mike-yd4pyyou’re drinking that third reich kool aid
I also have seen claims that Karl Doenitz, attempting to get more of Germany surrendered to the Allies, ordered Eastern armies to fight on while the Western armies to surrender.
This is a post construction by Dönitz to make himself look better. In documented reality he was an ardent enforcer of Hitler’s orders to fight to the last drop of blood. Post war he tried, and to some degree succeeded to publicly reframe himself as a protector of the German people. His communication logs, and his orders are preserved though… they paint another more sinister picture.
It also didn't help that in 1945, Germany was being defeated on two fronts, and there was a clear preference to surrender to the US and UK forces.
Hitler was not willing to give up, to anyone. He repeatedly explained this in the last months of the war, and had already outlined it in 1925 in Mein Kampf - for Germany it was going to be victory or destruction, nothing in between.
@@WorldWarTwo Right, I didn't mean Hitler's preference, I was thinking of the generals and the fighting men. Wasn't there a general sense that the Red Army was basically going to rape and pillage their way across Germany?
@@WorldWarTwo Hitler was not willing to give up, to any one.
But the wehrmacht soldiers who spent any time on the eastern front had a pretty good idea of what would happen if they surrendered to the soviets.
I'm sure soldiers in the german army definitely had a preference on who they surrendered to.
Proof of how sick the Nazis were.
So, basically, the same things happened except the decision to bail was taken early in 1918, so that collapse of the army and state happened after the armistice and not while still fighting. Save the part where the temporary collapse of the army caused Ludendorff to panic, such that by asking for an armistice, he essentially tipped the applecart on the homefront and caused the state to collapse, thus in turn undermining the army at the front which had in the interim stabilized its position for a time. Feedback loop of a fragile army and state once someone set things in motion.
Lundendorff was one of the reasons Germany lost WWI. It's a longer term, but much of his strategy, when you look at it under scrutiny went like that: A big tactical success, at the significant strategic cost, often long termed.
One look at Germany today tells why they fought till the end.
Say what you want about them, but they'd have never let what's happening in all western nations , occur under their regime
@kenw2225 look at his profile picture 😮
@oberleutnant4013 that's a lie , German/Italian & allied behaviour is the reason why things are the way they are now
No colonialism & no massive European war would have meant less immigrants 🤡. I'm from an area of the UK that's 60% non white British 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂. We all came here after WW2
Seriously, even now, the amount of senseless death caused by essentially Hitler and his Staff effectively throwing a tantrum (when it was and clearly had been over for a while) staggers me. Then again, their ideology was never "sensible," to begin with.
Yeah because britain causing ww2 over poland (who was massscaring ethnic germans on the border and broadcasting it) was definitely worth it. Ww2 is churchills war, not hitlers.
As is often the case, military efforts collapse not so much with one catastrophic defeat (think of the Fall of France in 1940 for Britain) as when the losing side runs out of troops. Hitler had expended his troops with his stereotypical "Hold out to the last and never retreat" orders that ensured that troops in the field would experience ultimate ruin. Late 1944 is when Germany lost its allies in Romania and Bulgaria and had pulled out of Greece, Italy had switched sides, and as the US and Britain had largely undone the Nazi victories of Spring 1940. With any logistical support, the Poles would have liberated Warsaw. Croatia and northern Italy were shaky holds for the Reich due to being honeycombed with partisans.
Wehraboos: "no, German troops are more superior in terms of morale, they could hold the Allies until September 1945, if they wanted to"
Also the US: *deploying portable sun on Munich or Nuremberg in August 1945*
There's no such thing as a Wehraboo, that's internet-gibberish.
And the Marshall Plan was epically underestimated as doing the right thing in the aftermath of WWII versus the punitive outcome of WWI’s Versailles Treaty. You never hear about it anymore.
Epic.
Extra point question: Who comprized the majority of Bolsheviks who were trying to shoot their war into power, right as the Kaiser fled? (Hint: it had a BIG impact on Hitler's views after the war.)
It was the Chinese right? lol
@@Steve-gs1jz LOL!!!
@@Steve-gs1jzIts always the Chinese
piss off nazi
Lol. You know who
The Germans did collapse in summer 1944 in Operation Bagration. The Eastern Front only stabilized because the Soviets outran their supply lines and needed to consolidate, plus they were mopping up the Balkans
That’s not a collapse though. A collapse is when the fighting force is overrun, begins to disintegrate, and loses its inability to fight in cohesion.
@@WorldWarTwo But.. that's what happened to Army Group Center
And as a german I'm thankful that we lost the war, don't want to live in a world people get separated by religion, skin color, sexual orientation or heritage...
So woke. 🌈🐇🦄
Lol. I can't. Germany is a joke today.
They ran out of crystal meth !
Why did they use such a dripping picture of Himmler dam 😂
The first picture is not Hitler
@@tmclaug90they didn't say Hitler, they said Himmler who was the leader of the SS.
Well... I come from a small town in the middle of Germany. The allies (U.S. troops, incidentally) arrived from the South, on the Saturday before Easter '45. They were greeted by Panzerfausts & machine gun fire - delivered by a mixed gang of schoolboys & retirees - the so-called "Volkssturm" (lit. "storm", rather "fury" "of the people")... luckily, one of the very last Nazi-euphemisms.
WHY did they still fight, with not the slighest chance of winning? For two reasons:
1. Especially the young ones had been brainwashed by the Nazi-regime. And that was maybe the thing, the Nazis were best at. Next to killing millions of innocent civilians, whose only "fault" had been they were Jewish. In my mind, the devil wears a human face: The one of Goebbels,- the Nazi-minister of propaganda. Pervertedly, many of the methods he devised, are still in use today: They call it advertising. And yes, these mechanisms still work as efficiently as back then: They start doing so in the moment your consciousness is slipping just for a second...
2. My grandfather, for the rest of his life, would claim time & again: "We didn't know about those crimes!" (and all the other war crimes committed by Nazi soldiers and SS)...
It doesn't take a university degree to realise that more than 6 million German civilians deported and killed alone, can hardly be a thing overlooked.
I, for one, am thankful for the allies, whose commmitment and sacrifice allowed me, and every German generation since '45, to grow up in a peaceful and democratic country! And thank God, we are educted on our past in school. May it NEVER happen again!
Bad thing: Time seems to have a tendency to make people forget... let us all NEVER make that mistake!
The war they imagined to be fighting well look at what's happened to Europe since 45
Nazi rat
If you like 1945 so bad, go check that out. I'll stay chilling in the 21st century
History Repeats Itself Moment
imagined to be fighting? Have you seen Berlin or London now? I think it's very obvious that they were actually fighting for the future of the continent.
Ok sympathizer
@@heyokasamurai453 kek and what? You think I care what you call me?
@@I_am_nobody999 let’s see, genocide, mass manipulation, enslaving Eastern Europe, trying to justify Hitler with something 80 years in the future is just plain stupid
@@heyokasamurai453 typical shite you got taught in school, load of crap
@@KhrisJenkins Europe isn’t being destroyed I’m not seeing cities collapse to the ground. You voted for this, you had 79 years to vote for and only now do you start blaming everyone else for your problems
I think its also important to mention the scale of ww2 in comparison to ww1. Germany was fighting several times the amount of soldiers of ww1 in that conflict towards the end.
Another important factor would be the technology at the disposal of all the powers involved which allowed for much quicker advances into enemy territory (faster more well armored tanks, stronger infantry weapons, superior aircraft...)
„Germany was suffering from an illegal, war crime naval blockade which killed 600.000 civilians in Germany and was even uphold in 1919 when the war was already over for months, causing the starvation of hundred thousands more“
Just corrected the sentence.
But remember, it’s just a war crime if you lose
In WW1, the army cracked much more subtly & over a longer period, made evident less through territory or victories & more through the state of the soldiers themselves, which makes perfect sense considering how the war was fought, the lines never moved very far, the troops just started to be increasingly young & old & they had less to eat, if they hadn't surrendered before totally collapsing - as they were starting to do, the troops were just too starved to keep fighting & many were jumping ship just to eat - it would've been from the trenches, gains still wouldn't have been the deciding factor. In WW2, it was more immediately visible because it was a mobile war, the Germans were actually pushed out of all of the places they pushed into rather than sitting still & withering away, & this was exacerbated by the fact that the Soviets remained in the fight, meaning they were being driven back rather quickly from 3 directions rather than sitting in place in 1.5 (the WW1 Italian front sure did kinda sorta exist)
Late war German offensives came to an end because half-starved German soldiers ate themselves into a stupor when Allied bunkers were captured.
1920's Germany under the Weihmar Republic was utterly fucking disgusting and nobody should ever be blaming them for fearing the return of something similar
Sus detected
shut up nazi, stop shouting these hitlerian lies
They cleaned up things for a bit.
@@kenw2225 you mean the late 1930’s? Under the national socialists?
That’s why he was so popular to begin with, listen some of his speeches in English
@@PJOZeus piss off, Nazi bastards both of you
Brewing revolutions in Germany? I prefer my dear neighbours to brew beer, As a Dutchman I must put my patriotism aside admitting that they brew the best beer in the world.