World War Two Performance Tier List (Part 2)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 чер 2024
- Remember to check out Yours App using this link: yoursapp.com/SPECTRUM or use the code: SPECTRUM to save 60% off the yearly plan!
Support me on Patreon: / spectrumytentertainment
Plenty of the footage from the video were taken from WWIIPublicDomain. Here's the channel: / wwiipublicdomain
00:00 France
02:37 YoursApp
03:40 Soviet Union
07:49 Finland
08:52 Denmark
09:01 Norway
09:16 Luxembourg
09:46 Belgium
10:19 The Netherlands
10:52 Italy
12:09 Hungary
13:11 Romania
14:05 Bulgaria
15:00 Yugoslavia
15:22 Croatia
15:50 Greece
16:37 Iran
17:03 The United States
19:11 Outro - Розваги
Download YoursApp: yoursapp.com/SPECTRUM
I'll have to admit, I felt overwhelmed by this project. Truth be told, this reminded me why I had been avoiding large projects with generalized, broad themes for so long. These Performance Tier Lists are an interesting concept, but I still think it needs some perfecting to do. Should I do another of these, there will be significant differences. In many ways, I'm just relieved I can focus on more normal projects.
Also, some parts of the video were censored in order to avoid demonetization, though that still failed in the end.
Hmm
🪖🎖
Crimean War tier list. Everyone gets F tier, video over.
@@thelongestrose Florence gets an A
Bulgaria fought the Usa and Nazi Germany in ww2.Look at bombing of Sofia
The reason Germany invaded Greece was Italian incompetence not Greece asking for allied help. As a matter of fact prime minister Metaxas had previously refused help from British troops for the purpose of not provoking Germany. Greece requested allied help only when it became clear that Germany was going to invade.
Οτι ναναι φτύνει γεγονότα
Oti nane is spitting facts
Ακριβώς αυτό. Το μέρος που είχε να κάνει με την Ελλάδα ήταν εντελώς λάθος, το αντίθετο έγινε στην πραγματικότητα.
You are correct even with Africa campaigns Germany might have one if they didn’t have so many fronts here were German axis fronts excluding Japan d day Africa to go to Sicily then invade Italy soviets Greece 4 fronts
Facts. Greece was a pretty chill nation that did actually fight for their liberty instead of provoking more violence.
Ps: Metaxas was a total idiot who created clusterf*ck after clusterf*ck apart from the time he stated Greece didn’t have the means to invade Asia Minor during ww1 . To which no one paid attention lmao.
F*ck metaxas.
Edit: used “*” instead of “.”
Italy was arguably the allies' greatest ally lol
As a Belgian, you gave us an F and the Dutch a B? That's it, you're on the waffle embargo list!
Eh, Belgian waffles aren't that great. Pannenkoeken are infinitely better, and the French are better because they made French fries.
@@country_flyboy I recognise bait when I see it
@@Subsandsoda Ok, I admit that the part about French fries was bait.
swiss chocolate is better
Finissez la ligne Maginot bon dieu !
Your statement is a bit off about Greece. The German mobilization was already decided and on its way, there was literally no chance they would not attack as Hitler would not risk another Salonika front. In fact, the Germans were so anxious to preserve the Italian army that they made contacts with the Greeks promising them not just peace but keeping all their gains in Albania if they were to stop. Metaxas replied how come you offer this and you walk into Romania? Surprised that he knew, this meant the end of discussions. This behavior infuriated Metaxas and the government but did not immediately allow the Brits to join. They insisted on a minimal effort in manpower (brits too didn't wish to commit) so the Germans wouldn't get the ruse. After Metaxas died and the German troops entered Bulgaria (too) they brought them over. The monkey wrench on Hitler's balkan campaign was Yugoslavia. He got so mad over them he ordered for their complete annihilation.
In reality, the Balkans were already granted on the Italian sphere of influence. The Italians were seriously pushed by the Germans NOT to declare war on Greece but wait for the war to end and then force their will on them. But Mussolini feeling threatened with Hitler's success had decided to get some gains now in order not to be left out. There was 0% chance that Greece could have been Finland and trust me, they tried to their utmost limit. They faced insurmountable odds, being invaded by Italian Albania, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria while being the only allied nation in Europe.
The Albania push was meant to cut the Italians OFF the sea and destroy their army, which if it worked and in combination with the encirclement in Africa, it would probably mean the KO of Mussolini even if the Germans sweeped over. An all-out plan to an already desperate/lost fight. Metaxas had stated that even if defeat was certain, they had to fight, which was also the sentiment of the Greeks. Now, the dictator was also cunning in believing that in the end, the Allies would win (pretty much guessed the events 2 years prior the Italian invasion down to their smallest detail). He knew that by fighting, they would be securing both a hero's status and a future.
The Greek strategy was ultra-realistic in fact. It just was the case that reality was inescapable death.
Yes, plus the Greeks kept fighting in the middle east, africa, italy and even normandy while mostly liberating themselves. There is no way Romania and Netherlands are in a higher rank. Plus i would say that Greece didn't want to end up like Finland and we were right not to. We ended up better, taking territory (even tho less of what we deserved because of the soviets) and without any finlandization
L L L L l
Did not read!
@@FDKuzkoBG Didn't ask
Definitely. He was way too harsh and unfair on Greece
Sir with all due respect you are being really unfair against Greece. They decided to fight the Axis Powers when at the time no other country was fighting them on land in Europe, they humiliated the Italians who were considered a great power at the time even though they were severely underequiped. The whole failure in Greece (and Crete) forced Germany to delay their attack against the USSR which led to them getting stuck in Russia during the winter. Also, Stalin only started to increased war production and start heavily enlisting soldiers after the Germans attacked Yugoslavia (which was defeated fairly quickly) and Greece.
Final point about the British, the British actually begged Ioannis Metaxas the leader of Greece to allow them to station troops near Thessaloniki but Metaxas denied them again and again because he thought that if the allies had forces withing bombing distance to the Romanian oil fields (the main source of oil for the Nazis) that would force Hitler's hand. Now this may have been a mistake in hindsight but it goes to show that your argument about Greeks asking British help is false.
FAMOUS QUOTES ABOUT THE GREEKS IN WWII:
Adolf Hitler:
"For the sake of historical truth I must verify that only the Greeks, of all the adversaries who confronted us, fought with bold courage and highest disregard of death.. " (From speech he delivered to Reichstag on 4 May 1941)
Winston Churchill:
"The word heroism I am afraid does not render the least of those acts of self-sacrifice of the Greeks, which were the defining factor in the victorious outcome of the common struggle of the nations, during WWII, for the human freedom and dignity. If it were not for the bravery of the Greeks and their courage, the outcome of WWII would be undetermined." (Paraphrased from one of his speeches to the British Parliament on 24 April 1941)
"Until now we used to say that the Greeks fight like heroes. Now we shall say: The heroes fight like Greeks." (From a speech he delivered from the BBC in the first days of the Greco-Italian war)
Joseph Vissarionovich Tzougasvili Stalin:
"I am sorry because I am getting old and I shall not live long to thank the Greek People, whose resistance decided WWII." (From a speech of his broadcast by the Moscow radio station on 31 January 1943 after the victory of Stalingrad and the capitulation of marshal Paulus)
Charles de Gaul:
"I am unable to give the proper breadth of gratitude I feel for the heroic resistance of the People and the leaders of Greece." (From a speech of his to the French Parliament after the end of WWII)
Moscow, Radio Station to Greece:
"You fought unarmed and won, small against big. We owe you gratitude, because you gave us time to defend ourselves. As Russians and as people we thank you." (When Hitler attacked the U.S.S.R.)
Georgy Constantinovich Zhoucov 1896-1974 Marshal of the Soviet Army:
"If the Russian people managed to raise resistance at the doors of Moscow, to halt and reverse the German torrent, they owe it to the Greek People, who delayed the German divisions during the time they could bring us to our knees." (Quote from his memoirs on WWII)
Sir Robert Antony Eden, Minister of War and the Exterior of Britain 1940-1945, Prime Minister of Britain 1955-1957:
"Regardless of what the future historians shall say, what we can say now, is that Greece gave Mussolini an unforgettable lesson, that she was the motive for the revolution in Yugoslavia, that she held the Germans in the mainland and in Crete for six weeks, that she upset the chronological order of all German High Command's plans and thus brought a general reversal of the entire course of the war and we won." (Paraphrased from a speech of his to the British parliament on 24/09/1942)
Sir Harold Leofric George Alexander, British Marshal during WWII:
"It would not be an exaggeration to say that Greece upset the plans of Germany in their entirety forcing her to postpone the attack on Russia for six weeks. We wonder what would have been Soviet Union's position without Greece." (Paraphrased from a speech of his to the British parliament on 28 October 1941)
Franklin Roosevelt, President of the United States of America:
"On the 28th of October 1940 Greece was given a deadline of three hours to decide on war or peace but even if a three day or three week or three year were given, the response would have been the same. The Greeks taught dignity throughout the centuries. When the entire world had lost all hope, the Greek people dared to question the invincibility of the German monster raising against it the proud spirit of freedom."
(Paraphrased from speech he delivered on 10/6/1943)
"The heroic struggle of the Greek people... against Germany 's attack, after she so thunderously defeated the Italians in their attempt to invade the Greek soil, filled the hearts of the American people with enthusiasm and moved their compassion." (Paraphrased from a speech of his on 25/04/1941)
"Until now we used to say that the Greeks fight like heroes. Now we shall say: The heroes fight like Greeks." Churchill
That quote always gives me chills
I respect that you went out of your way to show all that.
Hey...that was my work translation in another video but its ok.
Truth is above all as a famous ancient Greek philosopher once said.
@@kenmasters2034 yeah this is where I got most quotes, thank you sir!
@@thewiseguy6750 the Germans treated Greek POWS like really good
only qualm i really have is yugoslavia, because they literally liberated themselves, which i think is incredibly impressive
It’s not like they weren’t supported, and their enemy was being attacked on several other fronts.
@@thejackman687 lol
B tier, just like the dutch, but place them a bit higher
@@A_Pro_Fuze As a Dutchie I completely disagree. My country rolled over like an obedient dog.
Yugoslavia should be rated way higher than us and it is a spit in the face of all the partisans that fought there to equate them with us, the Dutch.
@@tsaoh5572 We did not roll over, we got terror bombed to shit. We held quite well actually. We also participated in the pacific campaign. But maybe Id give them a high C tier
As an American, I'm actually shocked to find out what Zhukov, Stalin, AND Khrushchev said about the lend-lease. I was under the similar impression to you that it was helpful, but not crucial; but seeing the three juggernauts of the Soviet war effort say it was almost vital (even if it was just for flattery) is incredibly impressive. I will always be proud of our nation's service in the Second World War. Also, overall a good tier-list with insightful info, and to be honest I wasn't expecting you to cover both these wars, but I like it.
It wasn't just flattery. Both Khrushchev and Zhukov's comments were made post-war (and even during the Cold War).
Lend-lease helped but the Soviets would’ve still won eventually, most of the supplies arrived after the victories at Stalingrad and Kursk.
@@eluc_s2510 can you show me some sources so I can dunk on liberals?
@@eluc_s2510 It wasn't about supplies. The US built their trucks and railways
@@eluc_s2510 no, it was crucial
Correction : Denmark fell in 6 hours, not even a full day.
Damn why you gotta do Denmark like that
so a quarter of a day
I mean, i think it's fair to surrender after 6 hours when the plan was to not even fight at all. The danish ground forces were just a deterrent. 14.000 danish soldiers spread out across the country with outdated rifles and basically no anti-armor weaponry to speak off, has no realistic chance of fighting even a week against an extremely overwhelming force of highly equipped, trained and modern soldiers.
@@arthurhebertthomsen6560 how was the navy of denmark? due to geography of denmark I would have guessed the could have played a roll even during a land invasion
@@elalcazar7374 The Danish navy was rather outdated, but still could have made a difference. Especially when you consider the unremarkable Kriegsmarine, the danes could have defended their main islands for a good while. But it all would come at the cost of countless civilians. German bomber aircraft flew over Copenhagen, threatening to turn the city into a second episode of Warsaw. With the Danes having virtually no functional air force, and no anti-air to speak of in the larger urban areas, putting up a fight for a couple of weeks or MAYBE a month, was just not worth it, considering the sheer amount of casualties the civilian population would suffer. And although i completely agree with the statement, that if all smaller nations were to just lay down their arms and cave to the Germans, then the Germans would have had a MUCH easier time with invading the bigger nations. But then again, you have to look at the issue from the perspective of the danish government. They've just witnessed the absolute devastation of Poland, and they could choose to either fight for a lost cause for a short while, and sacrificing countless innocent danes, or lay down their weapons to save them. So in that regard, even a decent navy would not have made any significant change for Denmarks situation.
The only other plus for Italy, their Navy frogmen, were A+ tier commandos.
And the folgore division.
Also their intelligence was best of the Axis, Rommel said they were his most reliable source in North Africa.
Really, every italian elite unit, and the infantrymen and infantry corps (plus the airmen, tankers/tank commanders and sea elite troops), is A. The italian planes would've been A too.
Greece only had a little bit of air-support from the RAF before the Germans launched operation Marita(invasion of Yugoslavia and Greece) but that was hardly what "provoked" Germany to attack. What set that in motion was mainly Hitler trying to help his pal "il Duce" save face after it became clear Greece wouldn't fall. It is true though that Greece did support the Royal Navy logistically by allowing to use Greek ports while already at war with Italy in Africa, which was also Italy's main pretext for invading Greece. But actual Commonwealth troops were allowed to land in Greece only after Germany began amassing troops and it became obvious they were going to invade the Balkans at any moment. Before that Greece had been super careful not to accept any overt British help because the Greek leadership correctly thought that the meager help Churchill could provide wouldn't make much of a difference militarily but would merely serve as a pretext for Germany to join the fight on the Italian side.
Yeah, Greece & Yugoslavia deserve at least to be B tier. They both faced insurmountable odds, and they both performed a lot better than anyone really expected. Even after being taken over, they put up a fierce resistance effectively giving Germany its own "Vietnam experience". There are very few nations in this war that can claim to liberate themselves.
Also the Bulgarians were not as neutral as you put them. They actively invaded and held regions of Greece and Yugoslavia, albeit due to old grievances with the two. I know that in the case of Greece, they actively pursued a policy of Bulgarianizaton of their region. Still, they were the only axis power that saved its Jewish community and the only one that came out with a net gain, so they have that too.
So what? Is Bulgaria good or bad?
@@FreshVito_bg I guess it's a ehhh!?
As high as Romania? Fuck no. Romania kept Germany in the war for quite some time with its oil. For pathetic Yugoslavia and Greece to be tied with Romania, Japan or the UK? Fuck no.
@@liviuganea4108 But like hey man, why you gotta be so disrespectful though?
@@galanopouloc Isn’t every country bad in a war? Doesn’t every country do some kind of authorities? Also how can no one talk about the Serbenisation and Hellenisation of the Bulgarian population in Macedonia and Thrace? I think it was obvious what the population of those lands were. The same problem is that Serbia wanted to share a border with Greece and to stop Bulgaria’s expansion because they both tough that we were “too powerful” Why would the treaty of San Stefano give Bulgaria these lands? They were ethnic borders made by the Russians. Even today the Slavs in Macedonia and Thrace speak Bulgarian.
In 1938 Churcill said that France had the most "perfectly trained and faithful mobile force in Europe". In 1939, he also thought tanks and aircraft would play a minor role in WW2. What the germans did during the first years of WW2 caught many off guard.
The fact that people from opposing sides recognised Greece's heroic struggle should have put above freaking Netherlands
except freaking Netherlands gave the allies a lot of intel support and they partially liberated themselves after some Canadian victories. Plus the Dutch navy escaped and joined the allies fleets in the Atlantic war. Though Netherlands failed to hold on too Indonesia their mainland was gone so not much they could really do anyways.
Germany (which surrounded the dutch atp) threatened to bomb to shreds every city (as they had to rotterdam) if the dutch did not surrender. The dutch actually had a unique advantage and could've pulled a China by flooding half their country, but the germans scared them enough to capitulate. Imo greece, the dutch and yugoslavians are equal
Norway consistently showed resistance, did significant damage to the German navy, prevented the axis from getting nukes, and gave Germany whats considered their first loss in narvik. They did this while being vastly outnumbered, not getting near the support they where promised from the allies, and having extremely outdated equipment. Is D tier really fair?
Yeah I'll do a hard no on the nuke thing.
Norway had heavy water refineries, which are used for fusion nukes, not fission nukes which the US ended up using in 1945.
The first fusion nuke (hydrogen bomb) detonation was in 1952. And that was with a peacefime budget, so the war would probably have to stretch to 1955 for the Germany to use those nukes, which would mean 10 years of the US using nukes without opposition.
Free France got a D tier, so yeah it is fair.
@@jdbtabouret.218 free france was literally a major power tho and had the men, recourses and technology to put up a far greater fight
@@happydemon3038 my point still stands and even if it was largely irrelevant, (which i really dont think it was considering both the allied and axis leadership clearly saw it as a bigger deal than you make it out to be) what would be the point in such a risky mission that if not done would benefit the country after the war? The german scientific community was also historically and currently some of the greatest in the world at the time and was under a government literally focused on going to the furthest extent possible to ensure the nations greatness, at the expense of everything else (they literally took u guys to space, u should know). So its pretty dumb to say that "because the US didnt do it surely the germans couldn't either" when the two not only are vastly diffrent, but the US had no reason to actually research heavy water since they had already found another solution. Germany on the other hand would most likely do the same thing but opposite. First realise their opurtunity and then focus mainly on it instead of trying to develop a fission bomb
@@basert1202 free France was too poor to fight against the German blitzkrieg because Pétain surrendered and gave everything to Germany.
It's weird to see the historic view of the US vs USSR, in as who contributed the most significantly in WWII, swing one way then the other in one lifetime, so dramatically.
One and only one year ago it was almost a consensus that the USSR basically won WWII single handedly; with whole of the Western front being at most a large side show, and to some degree Japan's unconditional surrender to the US mostly being about fear of a Soviet invasion.
15 years (or so) ago, you almost never heard about the USSR doing anything in the war. Just one day the war in Europe was over and there were suddenly 2 Germanys - bring out the spy games and MAD.
Look at the comparison of French polls about who contributed the most to the wat effort, with polls ranging from 1945 to the present; it's enlightening.
People spin narratives one way or the other. The USA itself had a wildly skewed view of the war due to Hollywood movies and Cold War propaganda. Americans have a much more sober understanding of WW2 since the end of the Cold War and advent of the internet.
On the other side of things it is not uncommon at all to see Russians claiming they won the entire war on their own now.
@@DiviAugusti I think it was always unfair to say Americans had an inflated view of their contributions to WWII based off of American written, American directed, and American produced movies based off of American experiences, intended for American audiences. All at the same time, having to have broad appeal to people on their Friday night out and telling a complete story in well under 2 hours.
At the very, and absolute least, Americans have always fallen all over themselves fawning over Churchill, have always thought the French resistance was cool, and respected the Russians as militarily & scientifically intimidating during the Cold War.
It's propaganda, both ways. The US just stopped propagandising, and so Russian propaganda prevailed. The truth is directly in the middle - the Allied fronts (Africa, Asia, West Europe) were almost exactly as important as the Eastern front.
Now, with the war going on in Eastern Europe, that paradigm might shift again as hostilities towards Russia increase.
Roasting Italy a little bit more :
During the italian invasion of France in 1940, a squad of 9 men managed to hold an entire Italian division for 7 days, until they got the news that the french government had surrendered. They had a very good defensive position, a small bunker behind a bridge. This is the battle of Pont Saint-Louis.
The reason behind this invasion is that Hitler told Mussolini that if he wanted some french territory, he had to conquer it, since Germany had done all of the "work". Thus, Italy with too much pasta and not enough industry, declared war and launched an unprepared invasion of France with the forces they had there. The catch is that the french-italian border is as natural as it can be : the Alps mountains, second highest chain of mountains in Europe after the Caucasus. In the end, Italy only managed to conquer some border villages. Despite annexing very little, they did occupy a corner of France, everything south and east of the Rhone river, and to their credit their occupation was much gentler than the german occupation of the northern half then of most of France
A significant indicator of Italy's performances is : they didn't manage to take Malta. Despite starting controlling Italy, Sicily and Libya.
I'm proud that my ancestors sucked, I don't know how the war with 2 Germanys would have ended...
I think “Oriental Italy” did a better job than Italy.
Not quite as bad as a single US soldier in Philippine held off a company of Imperial Marine on a very defensible position with plenty of ammo and no way of getting flanked. The Japanese commanding officer committed suicided after failing to take the position and wasting so many of his men.
Sorry to tell this to you but this battle is false and it hasn't been proven that it existed so its probably a mith
@@eric11 it has existed
A part that was not mentionned here is how the people resisted occupation from basically, like the millitants in Yugoslavia were pretty damn good and succesful at sabotaging and escaping, hiding in the mountainrange. The french resistance deserves to be mentionned as well I feel for helping to make D-Day happen.
For sure. Without the French, Polish, Czech resistance the war could have gone much differently. In specific to what you wrote about 26,000 French Resistance fighters gave their lives and caused major disruption to the Nazis in France whilst providing solid intel to the allies.
@@williamparis500 I'd have to look up the czech resistance as I haven't really heard of them but yeah for sure the polish helped as well even though the Warsaw uprising didn't really work but still yeah. And as for the french yeah the amount of Intel they gave out was pretty massive, apparently even little girls would sit on benches with their mothers in front of the road and count the number of supply trucks heading for X location and would then give out that info.
@@boniour3883 he did say that yugo liberated itself under Tito. And there’s just no way France is c
@@midgetthatnoonelikes2253 I'd personally argue that France is C tier. And while yes he did *mention* it, it doesn't feel like it was really taken inti account
@@boniour3883 - Look up Operation Anthropoid for the Czech Resistance and also the Liberation of Prague. Apologies for not mentioning the Yugoslav and Greek resistance as well. So many did their part in ensuring the Nazis hellish vision for our world didn't come true.
Great work, but I think that Yugoslavia and Greece are underrated, not only they were heroically fighting, but they also postponed German invasion of USSR which gave them several weeks for preparing
Underrated? Everyone knows what they did for the memes
Jugoslavia got invaded in 2 weeks, Greece could survive a bit only for its terrain
@@Tortellobello45 I mean when you get invaded from every direction by a much more powerful enemy. What can you do?
@@timtaylor9298 nothing, but idc
@@Tortellobello45 Yeah of course, Greece only survived because of their terrain eh? Goofy Historians in here 🤣
Norway is the country to hold out the second longest against a German invasion. This was having a minuscule population. They held out for two months against the most modern military on the planet. Definitely not D tier. C at least.
To me Norway gets high D tier, Norway's mountains and climate gets high B tier
@@astianpesukone_4226 bro germans trapped in finland cause they are now on allies is not really a fair battle
To be fair it is a very cold and long country which would explain why it took so long but I don’t really know much about Norway involvement in ww2
The Chad Bulgaria: Accepted the Germans but didn’t actually fight . Got more land in the end. Only used the Germans to give them territory. Saved its Jewish population. Didn’t invade or even declare war on the USSR. Switched sides and nobody noticed. 😎
Killed more than 40000 Greeks in an attempt of annexing the land instead of occupying like the Germans or the Italians
Bro I think you overlooked many things about Greece and gave it an unfair ranking. First of all, Greece was facing a much larger foe but still defended itself heroically. 7 million Greeks against 50 million Italians. The much smaller and less equipped Greek troops managed do handle the cold winter and pull the Italian troops away from their defensive positions, then heavily counterattack and take much of Northern Epirus, a historical majority Greek region that was given to Albania only after Italian demands a few decades prior. Furthermore, the Greek leader Ioannis Metaxas had prepared Greece for war. He built strong fortifications on the border with Bulgaria, known as the Metaxas Line (search for example Fort Roupel, which only surrendered close to a year after the rest of the country had fallen). This is the reason why Bulgarian and German forces weren't able to cross into Greece from there but instead had to go through the Yugoslavian border, which wasn't defended because Yugoslavia was considered an ally. Furthermore, Metaxas had actually denied British intervention numerous times, as he knew that this would bring a much larger German intervention. So in this aspect, the reality is the exact opposite of what you said. In fact, Metaxas had planned to propose a peace settlement to Germany where Greece would be neutral in the war, take Northern Epirus and the rest of Albania could remain under Italian administration but demilitarized. However Britain did not want this. Under shady circumstances (some say it was a British plot) Metaxas died in late January 1941 (he actually only had a cold and the best doctors next to him, but his health "rapidly deteriorated" and a day later he died) and after him, there was no one strong enough to lead the country, so the economics minister was temporarily put in charge, essentially making Greece a British puppet for the remainder of the war. Britain sent its troops to the north of the country but they weren't enough. They only cared about evacuating their own men in the end and not about helping Greece redirect its units to the German front. Therefore, the Germans crossed into Greece (April 6th) and only two weeks later had reached Athens, with panzers and trucks (the majority of the Greek army were either on foot or on donkey, how could they cross hundreds of kilometers through the Pindus mountains to reach the Germans?) In the end, the majority of the Greek army was encircled in Northern Epirus and either surrendered or left to North Africa, were the had significant contribution in the battles of El Alamein.
There was also significant Greek resistance, even in the region of Northern Epirus. This prevented German organization but also heavily raised Greek casualties. Especially the regions of Thesprotia, Thrace and Macedonia were subject to extensive ethnic cleansing programmes, so their Greek element could be removed and they could be integrated in Albania and Bulgaria respectively.
So, knowing all of this, I think you will reconsider. The Greeks fought hard but the chances were always against us. However two people, Churchill and Stalin, certify the importance of Greece in the war.
We shall now no longer say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks! Winston Churchill
The needless invasion of the Fascists into the Balkans and especially Greece has made Germany reschedule its attacks on us so that we'd have little time until the winter, giving us ample time to defend and prepare. If Greece hadn't slowed down the Germans so much, it is doubtful whether we could have actually won the war. Stalin (allegedly)
Greeks coping
You know that not all of the Italian population joined the war.
Cope
What? Bulgaria didn’t send any troops to fight Greece.
@@Tortellobello45 yes of course but neither did all the Greeks. Italy had large theoretical advantages in every term but still lost because of good Greek leadership, planning, courage and admittedly also their own mistakes. It's not my fault Italy couldn't mobilize, but it had a 7 times greater population available to mobilize
Considering you mentioned American generals, would you consider doing generals tier list?
I agree.
I would like to know where he holds each general and based on what they did.
Me, Ike will always be the top for his planning and logistical knowledge.
And he would break it up by generals/admirals of the branches as there were a lot
Tactically, the best was definitely Hermann Balck, who else could claim to face an entire soviet tank army and corps with one division and win?
On what war or period?
@@zachowonEisenhower was barely a general, Montgomery and Bradley did the planning and the logistics, Ike was only there to keep the relationship between Americans and British good
@@Stryker98 to tell the truth that battle was exagerated obviously and also he did nothing special for the rest of the war
Yugoslavia being bellow the Netherlands makes no sense. Yugoslavia had 2 liberation movements, and liberated itself with some Soviet support. Also the Yugoslav airforce did good against the Germans in the begining of the war. The Yugoslav campaign lasted longer than Germany expected, delayed operation Barbarossa and also lasted six weeks like France, a great colonial power.
The Yugoslav campaign lasting longer than expected says more about the expectation itself than the outcome, to be honest.
@@ZephyrusMapping says a lot about them almost liberating themselves though, and the lasting of six weeks is still an objective number
@@timothylu1 Six weeks? Yugoslavia lasted less than two
@@ZephyrusMapping while I'm not quite sure how long it took the Axis to fully conquer the country, the Bulgarian army moved in two weeks into the invasion, but Yugoslavia was only fully annexed on 14 May. since the Bulgarian army probably didn't defeat the Yugoslavian army in just one day but also they probably defeated them before they annexed them, I'm assuming it falls sometime in between our two figures of 2-6 weeks. I apologize
@@timothylu1 The Bulgarian army didn't even fight in the invasion of Yugoslavia. They moved in afterwards and replaced the German occupation forces in regions with large Bulgarian populations.
10:06 You do know that without Belgium Japan wouldn’t have surrender in 1945 right ?
Belgium was a integral part of the Manhattan project supplying every atom of uranium for it
that was the congo, which was a satellite state of belgium, like saying the british gave america the rubber for air production when it was the colonies that did, such as india and sub saharan african colonies
@@lenahatten1767 no the Congo was a Belgian colony like the Dutch East indies were to the Dutch.
3:34
Honorius: "Could you please try to not sh*t on me in every video you post...FOR FIVE MINUTES?"
Spectrum: "Neglecting Rome isn't so cool now, right?" 😎
Interesting video. You made a quick comment on Iran, which makes sense as what you say, Iran was not a major part of WW2. I really enjoyed you talking about Iran and the illegal invasion and occupation by the British and Soviets on a neutral nation. We normally forget that how large impact it had on Iran and the fact that the British and Soviets fully and unjustly attacked, killed and occupied a neutral country when they themselves were in war for recourses and transportation.
I do want to point out that Iran did have modern equipments, most of the problem was mostly the brutally of the allies and Soviets, not even declaring war, that they attacked before shipments bought had arrived and traitorous generals and that the allies had far more men and equipments. Iran was also in a two front war, which Iran just never could have faught. Many soldiers fought honorably and in the end of the war, Iran had prepared defences to hold out a little longer after their momentum had slowed down. But of course Iran had no chance of winning either way. But it is sad to thing that if they would have left a neutral nation alone, Iran could finished of its modernization much faster and a lot of death could had been avoided.
Another thing to add outside of the military is that the British and Soviets stole Iranian grain and destroyed her infrastructure causing a famine (which also happened in WW1), illegally occupied Iranian land after the war and also broke treaties with Iran.
nice
Bro put Greece below the Netherlands and on par with Poland, a country much larger country in population and size and basically every other aspect. Also the Dutch capitulated faster than Greece and Greece was in a worse political, economic state but still pushed the Italians back. Not to mention the fact that it is argued that Greece played one of the biggest roles in the defeat of the Axis power. It was the first country to defeat the Axis powers too. I could go on all day, but instead I will let major leaders of ww2 do the talking.
Franklin Roosevelt said “When the entire world had lost all hope, the Greek people dared to question the invincibility of the German monster raising against it the proud spirit of freedom”
Iosef Stalin said " [We] thank the Greek people, whose resistance decided WWII... you fought unarmed and won, small against big... you gave us time to defend ourselves."
Iosef Stalin also said "I am sorry because I am getting old and may not live long enough to thank the Greek people, whose resistance decided WWII."
Adolf Hitler himself said " For the sake of historical truth I must verify that only the Greeks, of all the adversaries who confronted us, fought with bold courage and the highest disregard of death."
Adolf Hitler also said "The Greeks delayed by two more vital months the German attack against Russia; if we did not have this long delay, the outcome of the war would have been different."
Winston Churchill famously said "If it were not for the bravery of the Greek and their courage, the outcome of World war II would be undetermined. Hence, we will not say Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks."
Charles de Gual said "I am unable to give the proper breadth of gratitude I feel for the heroic resistance of the people and leader of Greece."
Almost every major nation that played a role in WWII Praised Greece. I could literally go on forever. You have some misconceptions about Greece asking for British assistance as well. Metaxas even refused Allied troops initially to not bring up tensions with Germany. Greece is on par with Finland if not far more.
To be fair The Nerherlands is geographically far harder to defend then Greece
@@conflictsexplained9276 I agree, I am not saying the Dutch did not fight well for their position too, it was literally impossible for them to win, I am saying that Greece deserves far more merit for its impact in WWII than what it is typically given.👍🏻
@@Vasileio_tis_Ellados and the Dutch had to fight the japanese as well, as well as protect caribbean possesions.
@@Vasileio_tis_Ellados the government didnt flee to Indonesia, and there wasn't much strength to focus, since the country was occupied... they had to make do with what they had in Indonesia. Arguably the Navy could have done a lot better, but the Japanese were simply unstoppable in the early phase of that campaign.
The navy was very much fighting on different fronts at the same time. That being said, a C tier would have been more deserved. B is too much praise.
I agree that Greece shouldn't be below the Netherlands; Greece doesn't have (and neither did it back then) a larger population than the Netherlands. The Low countries (the Netherlands + Belgium + parts of northern France) have been one of the most densely populated and developed regions of Europe since the High Middle Ages. Comparable to northern Italy.
But in the defense of the Netherlands; their country is as flat as a pancake (same goes for Poland). Meaning blitzkrieg tactics are at their strongest (and given the size it has; they never really stood a chance; when the Germans then decide to destroy entire cities, surrendering may be the wisest decision). Far worse than Greece's rating in comparison to this is the rating of Belgium; which (compared to the Netherlands) had a comparable population, slightly less land and managed to hold on more than 3 times longer (or about 1/3 of the time France did; despite having a population 5x smaller and only 6% of France's surface area). It's almost hilarious that the French political elite; after the capitulation of Belgium, tried to blame Belgium for surrendering too easily. I mean, they're next to Denmark...
I think Greece would fit fine in either B or C, not A though (the Netherlands should definitely go down a bit; a D for sure, along Norway and Italy). I also think the Soviet Union should be quite a bit lower (A tier is way too high). I don't think the US should be above Finland or Germany, both of which punched far above their weight, whilst the US is basically a natural superpower (although to some that wasn't clear yet). I think France deserves to be a little closer to GB. The British were just as helpless against the German blitzkrieg as the French and didn't perform that much better in Asia either.
Would love to see a 7 years war tier list!
Germany: *Invades the Soviet Union*
Stalin: "Do not worry, guys. I will deal with this myself..." *Writes Adolf's name in his black list* "Done. Arrest him like the rest, boys!"
Source?
@@pfffttt9563 The source is that I made it the fuck up
@@diminishedreality7076 Bless your source for that line 👏👏
i think yoursapp really carried the axis, if it hadnt been for those horrible allies they would've won
Bro the yoursapp tank designs were just so strong and the yoursapp supply lines were so good yoursapp is a solid S tier.
"Romanians performed well early on"
You're talking about how it took them more than 2 months and massive casualties just to take Odessa?
"Dutch did well in Indonesia"
You mean how they lost Java in two weeks despite having more than a hundred thousand troops there?
"Yugoslavia couldn't have done much more"
You mean how they could've defended actually defensible lines instead of stretching their troops over the border just to cater to the Croats, and lasted for at least two weeks so that the Greeks and British could've established a proper defence in Greece in the meanwhile?
"Greek blunder of asking the British for help"
You're right, Greece should've somehow single-handedly fought off a country with almost 10 times its population and similar production capabilities with no external help. It's not like British weapon and supply shipments were crucial to the war effort or anything. Or that the Greek defence against the Italians was vital in preventing Egypt and the entirety of the Middle East from falling to the Italians at the time when there were less than 50,000 British troops present there and the Brtish weren't willing to commit anymore due to the battle of Britain and fears of an invasion in the home isles. Or that the Germans' very participation in the campaign dragged Yugoslavia into the war and forced the Germans and Italians to waste large amounts of troops and resources on garrison and anti-partisan operations in both Yugoslavia and Greece itself.
And finally, the placement of the US does not take into account the fact that they were playing on easy mode. Obviously they'd have the best production, their industrial centers were far from any threat and they didn't have to redirect significant amounts of manpower and workforce to the army. As for the lend-lease you are putting the cart before the horse, even if the US provided the Soviets the extra boost to tip the scales (if we even accept that, Moscow counteroffensive begun days before the Americans joined the war and the Germans would've run out of oil eventually as they had no realistic hopes of capturing Baku), their aid was still far outnumbered by Soviet home production.
The Soviets wouldnt be able to launch massive offensives like in our timelime with no lend lease
Completely agre about the Netherlands, Greece and Yugoslavia, he very much undervalued them compared to the Dutch.
@@Sceptonic Not as early as they did, no, but the Germans were always on a timer, their fuel and manpower were limited, eventually they'd run out of one or both and collapse.
Important thing with the Lend lease? The big thing the US gave that the Soviets needed were trucks as well as some machines for factories. Without those, A.) the USSR couldn’t make as much, and B.) they couldn’t get all that material they CAN make to their troops, making it worthless (they REALLY had trouble with this early war, it’s why their was the infamous “first man has rifle, second follows”)
the dutch subs sank alot of japanese ships in the early war
Kinda unfair to say that the Soviets carried the romanians after switching sides, the liberation of northern Transilvania was competed almost entirely by Romania and even Budapest was captured by romanian troops, the Soviets didn't want to bother so they threw us in the first line so we suffered heavy casualties
For Budapest that’s not true the Romanian army only was responsible for attacking like 1/5 of the city at most the rest was done by the soviets, however I won’t deny their involvement and also the soviets exiled the person they put in charge of the Romanian army in Budapest to Siberia because they didn’t want to share the glory of capturing the city with the Romanians
Budapest was occupied by soviet troops because they did not want to share the victory with the Romanians. Romania also fought in Slovakia and had some success. Romania lost around 60% of its fighting force when they fought in Hungary and Slovakia
So yeah it is a little bit unfair to say that Romania was carried by the Soviets but the placement is still good
@@D.A.R.89 România is only under 4 countries and is over the UK and Japan, I think we should be thankful
@@cosminivan9927 that is what I said lol, I didnt expect such a good placement
I think Greece deserves more credit than that. They mark a major point in the war, since they have the first Allied land victory, were able to push back against one of the major Axis members, and were one of the countries that lasted the longest (October 28 1940- June 1 1941). All of this from a country that was so small, and got so much casualties from the conflict (high estimates put Greece at 805,000 casualties, which is massive in context with other countries). Plus if Lend Lease gets quotes from the time to bolster it, Greece should get that too, since the Russians said Greece was a major reason they were able to not get crushed, and both Allied and Axis leaders heavily praised Greek fighting. Everyone expect Greece to get wiped off the map like every other country the Axis had invaded up to that point, but Greece stood strong and tall for as long as they could.
The lend-lease for the Soviets was crucial in 1941 and in 1942 especially during Stalingrad. When the Soviets recovered and began pushing, it wasn't as vital, but it definietly still helped out, especially the logistical support
That's like the exact opposite, bruh
@@pompom8315look at some graphs and charts, it was crucial in the early years, but after that not really
@@thatcooltree Exactly, lend lease was what allowed the USSR to kickstart its own industrial war machine, and once that got rolling it completely dwarfed the lend lease.
The lend lease had almost bo effect, surley it helped but not in the effect most think, the germans were out of fuel, recources and guns. Lend lease or not they would have lost the war. The weapons helped short term only. Without the act the war would have killed more soviets yes, but not turned the tide of the war
@@guymysteryman6390Care to explain how the germans would anyway still crack, run out of stuff and collapse with the added change of the soviet regime and population crumbling, being unable to push them back, being unable to sustain themselves and put a good fight?
Even with them not having lend lease and struggling and falling in 1942 or even 1943, and not in 1941 or in the early 1942s.
I feel as the most impressive thing about the Soviets is that they somehow beat back an enemy who had prepared years, heck, even decades to defeat them and they so barley clung to life but (and yes, though they were massively helped by the lend lease) somehow denied German access to oil deposits and strategic cities and supply stations (Leningrad, Stalingrad etc)-even after having basically a majority of their army and workforce captured in a year by the Germans- mostly independent
Germany hadn’t prepared for decades, their military was only rebuilt after 1935 and it was mainly built to defeat France, their main enemy who imposed the humiliating treaty of Versailles against them.
Hitler for a time in 1940 was actually content to be at peace with the USSR but by late 1940/early 1941 he changed his mind because of the USSR’s horrible performance in the Winter War and Molotov’s instance of greater Soviet influence in the Balkans pushed Hitler to want invade the USSR as soon as possible.
The ussr did prepare for war itself
@@midgetthatnoonelikes2253 USSR didn't actually
Stalin expected Germany invading the Soviet Union leading to a 2 front war will be nothing but a suicide mission
Which resulted in Hitler suicide
@@tylerclayton6081 That’s just wrong, Germany needed to invade the Soviets and there was no point where they could possibly hesitate- Germany needed fuel to power its army, airforce and navy along with food to feed its starving population; they had neither, however they did have re-equipping soviet armies bordering them who could easily beat back any theoretical future German attack if Germany were to postpone any early invasion
Biggest problems with even capturing the oil fields is that firstly it will need to take time to link up refined fuel safely from the Caucasus, months even. The second problem is make them operational since the soviets torched them destroying the pumps and refineries in any danger of German capture. By miracle if the Germans captured them any technicians or oil refiners estimated years before they became of any use, 2 even with slave labor making up any shortages.
Spectrum, why was some of the footage kinda weird in this video?🤔
The US produced half of all war materials used in total in WW2 by all sides including the China theater. Essentially, whichever side the US chose was guaranteed to win the second world war and force the complete surrender of the other side. The US was the only country in WW2 which had the extra resources and industry to invent the Nuclear bomb, no other country was even close to building a nuke by 1945.
They provided lend lease to all their allies mainly to the USSR, Britain, and China the most important of which was the food aid and the 400,000 trucks sent to the USSR. They gave the Soviets 5 trucks for every T-34 built throughout WW2. Operations like bagration and little Saturn would have been logistically impossible for the Soviets without US Trucks and Jeeps.
And the Americans did perform pretty well in the western front, they helped keep 50% of the Luftwaffe occupied in West and South from late 1942 onwards. And they almost always inflicted more casualties than they took while the Soviets always took 2 to 3 times more loses than the Wehrmacht.
The most important thing the USA gave to the USSR that saved the USSR was not weapons or vehicles but supplies and support equipment, especially medical supplies and infrastructure, which the Soviets had almost none of previously and nowhere close to the scale needed for their military. Honestly, the imported Trucks were not as crucial because the soviets already had plenty of industrial capacity for their production. But in all seriousness, the Americans saved the soviets. In all honesty, we should have nuked the Muscovite Heartlands after their betrayal and utter ingratitude displayed by their blockade of Berlin before they had nukes for the MAD trump card.
"Say hello to Ford, and General F***** motors!"
@@nevets2371 Eh, Ford helped the N*zis by giving them the Blitz Trucks.
@@InquisitorXarius that would be scandalous to nuke a former ally so soon after the war
@@InquisitorXarius the biggest problem with this is truck manufacturing is that the soviets almost entirely relied of Ford trucks to transport supplies and troops from the destroyed and regauged raillines. The Soviets did not have to capacity to reliably produce enough trick and other war material of transport without dividing attention from other vehicles of war such as their tanks and aircraft. Even if they did any soviet truck would breakdown due to most of the macro detriments of Soviet heavy industry.
Greece deserves to be in the same tier as Finland they were in a very bad shape and they humiliated the Italians who overpowered them by a lot and they also had worse equipment than them and Greece is smaller In size and they even managed to counter attack they didn't really asked the British for help but the British were begging them to put the troops and the leader of Greece ioanis metaxas rejected them many times and let's not forget that after wards they had to fight with 3 countries 4 if you count the albanians too and they managed to resist for a long time especially in Crete which they were only fighting with scythes and rocks
I agree that Greeks fought like heroes of old but again they didn't last that long and in the end they were occupied. So I think C or B tier is completely fair to them, maybe even A tier. Finland's performance in the second world war however was so great that I wonder how you could put them anywhere else then S tier.
@@tuplat5107 I agree at Finland being s tier and yes Greece did got occupied but let's keep in mind Finland was fighting with only one superpower and had better technology than Greece at the time and had some aid from Germany Greece deafeated the Italians without the help of anyone which even though Italy had bad performance the army Italy had was way stronger and then Greece was fighting with Germany Italy Bulgaria and some Albanians joined the Italian front and still resisted and even managed to resist in Crete so c tier is too low if not s tier then a tier but below a sounds harsh to me
Same for Yougoslavia
They had 12m people
We exclude Croatia and Bosnia
We get 9m people
Of which 2m died
And still Yougoslavia got 600k Soldiers and forced Axis powers to put 600-950k soldiers on Yougoslavia
@@serbiaknight8190 Yugoslavia performed well Greece and Yugoslavia were one of the few countries that resisted against Germany
@@astianpesukone_4226 idk about the German part but again Finland had much better weapons and technology and they were fighting against one super power am not saying Finland didn't perform well of course it deserves s tier but Greece does too I explained why above
Putting Yugoslavia in C is incredibly stupid.
Spectrum, you must remember that brazil sent 26,000 army men to help in the Italian front. And they captured 20,000 German in the fifth U.S. division.
Wow it is not often that I agree with a tierlist for the full 100%, especially not when it comes to history but this one of those rare occasions. Great list and great video
very good tier list i agree 100%
"No tweak in the Timeline would save it" Spectrum **Eyes Honorius while holding a gun in his hand**
As a romanian thank you for lifting my pride a bit after the WW1 video, lol. I know we were with Hitler and that we switched sides when the things got south but.... to be fair we really didn't want to enter the war, the country was under military dictatorship after losing Northern Transylvania to Hungary after the Second Viena award (this is how Hitler pretty much played us and the Hungarians, promising to both countries things he wouldn't eventually respect) so we basically enter the war to make our country whole again. So yes, Romania was a very important country strategically because of our oil fields and relatively large army, also we pretty much hated Russia too for taking Basarabia. There's a book about Antonescu (romanian Marshall at the time) and Hitler, it's called "Hitlers forgoten Ally, Ion Antonescu and his regime Romania 1940-1944". I haven't completely read it yet, but is about how much Hitler respected Antonescu in decision making, and the fact that Romania was the only Russian ally that was rewarded terrories in the east in the war. Historically for us WW1 was more important because then we obtained România Mare, the kindom of all ethnic romanians (almost) even though we sucked at that war, we got really lucky ending up in the winning team, and having good diplomats. Thanks for the vid btw, really like your channel! ^^
Yep! You summed it up very well!
@@lexthemystic3541 thx:)
Bessarabia was taken from Russia by romanians during russian civil war
@@semenpiter Basarabians are Moldovans, an romanian speaking ethnicity, west Moldova was already part of Romania, the eastern part over the Prut river was conquered by the Russian empire in 1812 from the Moldovan Principality
@@semenpiter So yes, we took Basarabia from Russia but with the local agreement, amd ok good motives from the time
Well in defence of the french french resistance in the very country was very important (by the end of the war most of the country was favorable to it and most people had helped it in some way) and played a great role in preparing the invasion
Amazing video. I really love the Tchaikovsky every time Russia is discussed!
I would not down size the importance of the Soviet union during the war, yes the land lease was important but they did pay that back in blood. The US is of course a very important actor in WW2 but if the Soviet union had fallen to the axis the war would have been harder for the allies to win.
Both The U.S and the Soviet union are equally vital to the war, one provided the material and the other one the blood to hold of the Axis, they should be evenly ranked i think.
personally id argue the USSR barely beats them out in importance but looking at 1941 the user's performance is so horrendous that id put them lower
@@cokelover-nb1qz interesting though that the turning point of the war happened in the east but i guess that isn't important, nor the fact that the allies would never be okay with throwing millions of lives away to win the war like the Soviets did, U.S freaked out over the idea of losing 1.7 - 4 million to take out Japan with out using nukes.
Had Germany taken out the Soviets then they would have almost infinite resources to continue the war and speed things up, had they not attacked the Soviets that would be an extra 3 + some millions for the allies to deal with in the west.
But yeah you are right the U.S obviously is better and could easily turn any of these two scenarios around for the allies by themselves.
@@ZzrikNuking Berlin would do it
@@Zzrikthey could a nuke can go a long way
Had the US fallen or signed peace everything would've ben over too, like with the USSR. That can't be the factor. At least with the contribution one can see the slightly more importance, and especially more prominence, by the Usa.
Though, thousands of Bulgarians died fighting Greek and Yugoslav Partisans during occupation, and were involved in the Soviet's Belgrade Offensive.
I already know people are about to be crying that the USA got S tier.
They'd be right to.
Crying with joy
@@brandonf1260 😂
I won't lie, I fully expected you to fall into the tired-old trap of "Romania bad, only changed sides because Axis losing" like pretty much every other historian coming into this part of your WW2 tier-ranking series but you actually went into detail over what we actually accomplished militarily in the war.
Personally, I would have liked if you also went over the complex political situation that led to us starting out with the Axis and how nobody in Romania was enthusiastic about that but overall, a pretty respectable and - most importantly - objective and nuanced point of view when I'm used to either ignorance or outright bias against us whenever the topic of my country during WW2 is discussed.
And we get a nifty B-tier at the end of it too! I can definitely say I was not expecting this. So, thank you. 😇 Much respect to you, good sir. 🇷🇴🇷🇴🇷🇴
I am guessing the video got demomitized given the grey footage
Don't forget that the us supplied a huge amount to not just the ussr but the British and pretty much every other allied nation.
Mongolia
0:00 A Fast Fall 🇫🇷 and A Infamous Photograph Eiffel Tower
2:14 Vichy France 🇫🇷
3:40 USSR: Struggle in The East 5:26 Without Machines, USSR would have lost War
8:08 Finland 🇫🇮 consistently outnumbered
8:54 Denmark 🇩🇰 F-
Norway 🇳🇴 D
Luxembourg 🇱🇺 F didn’t have a realistic chance
9:47 Belgium 🇧🇪 F didn’t have a realistic chance
10:19 Netherlands 🇳🇱 B tried
10:52 Italy 🇮🇹 D it was worse than it sounds, dependent upon Germany
13:12 Romania🇷🇴 was what Italy should have been, Germany’s top sidekick
14:06 Joined under threat of Germany
15:00 Yugoslavia “When you are invaded on all sides, odds are you will cave under the pressure.”
Croatia 🇭🇷
16:38 🇮🇷
17:03 USA 🇺🇸 19:07 S for Squeak 🐭
🪖🩸🩸🩸
Not all heroes wear capes!
Appreciate the Vaughn Williams in the background. Songs of Travel is a great cycle.
Would love to see more tier lists
I agree that Belgium got decked pretty easily by the Germans, but the 40 man strong Chasseurs Ardennais holding off several German Divisions including Rommel's elite 7th Panzer division, "Ghost Division" is pretty impressive.
🎵WE, WE WILL RESIST AND BITE
I think something to note about America is how they had NCOs, and officers dying did not mean dig in, which is pretty different from everyone else. Also Japanese don’t surrender, and it’s like a 20-30% rate of surrender in Europe in any given war
Germans had an even more effective lower officer freedom.
Are you doing the Pacific Theatre separately?
Nice Video. Could you make a Tier list for the Holy Roman Emperors Pls!
I just love finding channels that are waaaay too good for their sub count. Love, UK :D
So Greece only had one blunder, since it only asked for help after knowing the Germans would attack, I expect Greece to be moved further up in the rankings because of this
I'd say A rank fits best, for how much they affected the war. There wouldn't be an Italian invasion without Greece, the Allies wouldn't have turned the tide in Africa if the Italians had just focused on Africa like Hitler wanted, Germany would have had paratroopers for Russia if not for Crete, the Allies got their first substantial victory with Greece pushing back against the Italians, and both sides heavily acknowledged the Greek effort, multiple of them saying the war was saved for the Allies by what Greece did.
@@munromister777 yeah plus the delay the Greek campaign had for the Germans gave the Russians the time they needed to better prepare for the Germans and even after Greece was taken the resistance in Greece put the French one to shame since the Greek citizens fought tooth and nail just like their soldiers did, much like the poles
I gained massive respect for you when you pronounced Vojvodina correctly
Hey what was the song sung by during the Yugoslavia segment?
I think that Norway should get a higher rating than low D tier if you count the Norwegian ressistant as they stopped the Germans from getting the nucler bomb and made Germany had 1 solder for every 5 - 7 civillian with a population of 3 millions, the Germans garrison 430 000 - 600 000 german soldier at any given moment.
First to fight, alongside the polish.
As a Romanian I know that Bulgaria was seen as a losser while romania was seen as a winner(in a weird way) as we were sold for Greece at the last minute.Kinda sad as we actually got the army to Germany unlike Greece but hey they did not had boarder with the urss so was probably the right choice since we were doomed anyways from the start.
Bulgaria grew in size by 7,000 km2 as a result of WW2 while Romania shrunk by 57,000 km2. At the Paris Peace conference in 1946, the Soviets wanted to present Bulgaria as a winner so that it could annex parts of northern Greece, but France and Britain objected. The Soviets justified this by pointing to the fact that Bulgaria's government had been overthrown before the Soviets reached Sofia, thus the regime change was not imposed by an outside invasion. Bulgaria also contributed more than 100,000 troops to the Soviet war effort in Yugoslavia, Hungary, and Austria, so despite switching sides very late, Bulgarian participation in the allies was not insignificant.
@@exdeeexdee we shrunk cause we had borders with the soviets.Finland for example which never entered the boarders of the soviets lost all the land they regained during the winter war+ a bit extra.Not to mention poland and czechoslovakia which did not even fought against the Soviets as an offensive.Bulgaria got away without lossing land cause they did not had boarders with the soviets.Also since does southern dobrogea have 7000km².Also yes i'm aware that they really wanted greece and romania and not Bulgaria but my point still stands.
@@brothatsucks >Also since does southern dobrogea have 7000km²
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Dobruja
@@exdeeexdee oh it looks so small on a map but I guess you are right
This is the juicy one
You should do Generals Tier List for different wars.
without the US giving the USSR billions of dollars worth of guns, ammo, tanks, planes, trucks, jeeps, tractors, trains and locomotives, boxcars, train rail tracks, steel, explosives, gun powder, fuel, food, clothes, blankets, army boots, radios, and other crucial military equipment through Lend Lease then the USSR would have been steamrolled by Germany in WW2
In 1963, In an interview with the Soviet wartime correspondent Konstantin Simonov, a KGB monitoring recorded Soviet Field Marshal Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov stating: "People say that the allies didn't help us. But it cannot be denied that the Americans sent us materiel without which we could not have formed our reserves or continued the war. The Americans provided vital explosives and gunpowder. And how much steel! Could we really have set up the production of our tanks without American steel? We didn’t have explosives, gunpowder. We didn’t have anything to charge our rifle cartridges with. The Americans really saved us with their gunpowder and explosives. And how much sheet steel they gave us! How could we have produced our tanks without American steel? Without American trucks we wouldn’t have had anything to pull our artillery with." and then a quote from the leader of the Soviet Union Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin: "I want to tell you what, from the Russian point of view, the president and the United States have done for victory in this war," Stalin said. "The most important things in this war are the machines.... The United States is a country of machines. Without the machines we received through Lend-Lease, we would have lost the war." Nikita Khrushchev offered the same opinion. Nikita Khrushchevs Memoirs also state that the USSR would have lost WW2 without the US, a quote from the Premier of the Soviet Union Nikita Khrushchev: "I would like to express my candid opinion about Stalin's views on whether the Red Army and the Soviet Union could have coped with Nazi Germany and survived the war without aid from the United States. First, I would like to tell about some remarks Stalin made and repeated several times when we were "discussing freely" among ourselves. He stated bluntly that if the United States had not helped us, we would not have won the war. If we had had to fight Nazi Germany one on one, we could not have stood up against Germany's pressure, and we would have lost the war. I will state here that several times in conversations with me he noted that these were the actual circumstances. When we were engaged in some kind of relaxed conversation, going over international questions of the past and present, and when we would return to the subject of the path we had traveled during the war, that is what he said. When I listened to his remarks, I was fully in agreement with him, and today I am even more so." I am going to believe Soviet Field Marshal Georgy Konstantinovich Zhukov, Premier of the Soviet Union Nikita Khrushchev, and leader of the Soviet Union himself Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin all admitting that they would have lost the war had it not been for the US rather than some anti US tankie trolls going on a mission to downplay US efforts
According to Russian historian Boris Vadimovich Sokolov, Lend-Lease played a crucial role in winning what the Russians call, the great patriotic war, also known as WW2: "On the whole the following conclusion can be drawn: that Without these Western shipments under Lend-Lease the Soviet Union not only would not have been able to Win the Great Patriotic War, it would not have been able even to oppose the German invaders, since it could not itself produce sufficient quantities of arms and military equipment or adequate supplies of fuel and ammunition. The Soviet authorities were well aware of this dependency on Lend-Lease. Thus, Stalin told Harry Hopkins [FDR’s emissary to Moscow in July 1941] that the U.S.S.R. could not match Germany’s might as an occupier of Europe and its resources.[24]"
In total, 92.7% of the wartime production of railroad equipment by the USSR was supplied by Lend-Lease, including 1,911 locomotives and 11,225 railcars which augmented the existing stocks of at least 20,000 locomotives and half a million railcars. Much of the logistical assistance of the Soviet military was provided by hundreds of thousands of U.S.-made trucks, 1/3rd of the truck strength of the Red Army was U.S.-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4th ton and Studebaker 2+1/2 ton were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. American shipments of telephone cable, aluminum, canned rations and clothing were also critical. Lend-Lease also supplied significant amounts of weapons and ammunition. The Soviet air force received 18,200 aircraft, which amounted to about 30 percent of Soviet wartime fighter and bomber production (mid 1941-45). About 13,000 Lend-Lease tanks were provided to the Soviet Union. A particular critical aspect of Lend-Lease was the supply of food. The invasion had cost the USSR a huge amount of its agricultural base, during the initial Axis offensive of 1941-42, the total sown area of the USSR fell by 41.9% and the number of collective and state farms by 40%. The Soviets lost a substantial number of draft and farm animals as they were not able to relocate all the animals in an area before it was captured and of those areas in which the Axis forces would occupy, the Soviets had lost 7 million of out of 11.6 million horses, 17 million out of 31 million cows, 20 million of 23.6 million pigs and 27 million out of 43 million sheep and goats. Tens of thousands of agricultural machines, such as tractors and threshers, were destroyed or captured. Agriculture also suffered a loss of labor, between 1941 and 1945, 19.5 million working-age men had to leave their farms to work in the military and industry. Agricultural issues were also compounded when the Soviets were on the offensive, areas taken back from the Axis had been devastated and contained millions of people who needed to be fed. Lend-Lease thus provided a massive number of foodstuffs and agricultural products.
the US did strategic bombing campaigns on the German mainland destroying Germanys industrial production which was vital to slowing down the German advance in 1942 and 1943
in 1941 Japan was preparing for a massive invasion into the USSR called Operation Kantokuen but it was canceled because the US did an oil and fuel embargo on Japan and because of the rising threat of the sleeping giant known as the United States then Japan had to divert their attention to the Pacific and the US, if it wasnt for the US defeating the Japanese empire in the Pacific then Japan would have gone through with Operation Kantokuen and together with Germany would have crushed USSR on 2 fronts
the US bankrolled WW2 financed it more than anyone else and the US was the backbone of the allied logistics in WW2 and without American logistics then Germany and Japan would have won WW2
during the 1920s and 1930s the USSR relied on US aid to help industrialize the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union relied on American engineers, American industrialists, and American architects to build the Soviet factories and build the Soviet industry in the 1920s and 1930s which the Soviets later used in WW2 to help win the war with Germany, if not for the US aid to help build the Soviet industry the Soviet Union wouldnt even have anything to produce tanks, vehicles, weapons, ammo or any other important military equipment and they would have been steamrolled by Germany, Russia had to rely on American industrial engineer Frederick W. Taylor's industrial methods to succeed in creating an industrial power, without the US building the Soviet industry in the 1920s and 1930s the Soviet industry would have been a joke during WW2, so even Soviet domestic production was also thanks to the US building their industry in the 1920s and 1930s
in WW2 the US conducted military operations in the Pacific in the Philippines campaign 1944-1945, Solomon Islands campaign, New Guinea campaign, Gilbert and Marshall Islands campaign, Mariana and Palau Islands campaign, Volcano and Ryukyu Islands campaign, battle of Okinawa, battle of Iwo Jima, battle of Midway, battle for Henderson Field, battle of Tulagi and Gavutu-Tanambogo, battle of the Komandorski Islands, battle of the Philippine sea, battle of Leyte Gulf, battle of Cape Esperance, naval battle of Guadalcanal 1942, battle of Vella Gulf, battle of Ormoc Bay, Operation Starvation 1945, the US bombing campaigns of mainland Japan to destroy Japans industrial production and the Japanese air defenses failed to take out the US air force, the fact that the US single handedly destroyed the entire Japanese navy and air force, the fact that Japan was rampaging all through out Asia advancing and expanding their empire rapidly until the US showed up
the simple conclusion here is that WW2 would be an absolute German-Japanese victory had it not been for the US
This is good. Far too good.
Why did you put a Jumpscare in the beginning?
Could someone explain why a lot of the stock footage looks like Schlieren?
what is that regime you mentioned at the start of romania?
-start video
-France
-gets put lower than Poland
-"I've seen enough, i'm satisfied"
Although that's Poland anyway. They did it all, and were undefeatable underdog heroes against the Axis (despite the USSR's help to the germans' effort versus the poles, and their persecutions when they had the chance vs the poles).
I would probably also put Slovakia into there, because they had the longest standing uprising against Axis and stalled german units which had to put it down. Not exactly any high tier, but a mention and being put into ? tier wouldve been nice
They were in the last video, and put in the b tier my guy.
Can we get a Napoleonic Wars tierlist?
A bit disappointed with Norway's position, considering the sabotage missions, the sinking of blücher, the fact that it took the germans 2 months to conquer a neutral country with a small army, not to mention that Norwegian soldiers stopped the germans from getting a hold of the heavy water resource as well as the king's family being able to flee the country. Dont get me wrong, Norway lost, but D-tier seems a bit too harsh imo
I mean Norway had a ton going in its favor tbf. Allied support, extremely mountainous terrain, and being invaded by a land power that it had no border with.
@@SuperCrow02 the allied support was largely a failure considering how little they were prepared, especially the uk, who somehow managed to forget a bunch of supplies and navigation tools. As for the mountainous terrain, the majority of the norwegian population (as well as the capital) are on flatter lands and near the coast. Norway also didnt do like switzerland and fortified their mountains, instead having a very simple army with outdated machinery and firearms, usually from WW1. And as for the border, considering the fact that germany had a larger and more advanced navy, had just conquered denmark without a hitch, as well as being allowed to move troops through "neutral" Sweden, I'd say they might as well be bordering Norway.
@@Svalbardmannen Norway wasn't invaded through Sweden, and Norway had the British and French navy helping them which where both bigger than the German navy.
@@cqpp "The lengthy fighting in Norway resulted in increased German requests for indirect assistance from Sweden, demands that Swedish diplomats were able to fend off by reminding the Germans of the Swedes' feeling of closeness to their Norwegian brethren. With the conclusion of hostilities in Norway this argument became untenable, forcing the Cabinet to give in to German pressure and allow continuous (unarmed)[citation needed] troop transports, via Swedish railroads, between Germany and Norway." This is a quote from the wikipedia page on german transit through sweden and finland. And as for the french and british navies, they did not send large fleets (certainly not france) and as I already stated, whatever assistance they did send was usually vastly under-prepared and poorly managed
I think a testiment of how hilariously unbalanced the War was due to American involvment is when you realise that the US added literal boat loads of Ice Cream into it's global logistics network.
@@immortalnetwork7917 Stay mad, WW2 would have been lost if it wasn’t for the USA.
@@alexbradford9973 oh really? How so sweetie?
@@immortalnetwork7917 Zhukov, Khrushchev, and Stalin literally said it would have been lost without US lend lease. The UK and Commonwealth were not strong enough on their own to launch an invasion of mainland Europe without US support. Also, without the US navy, the British would be spread pretty thin trying to fight German U-Boats, the Italian Navy, and the Japanese Navy.
@@alexbradford9973 Firstly just because a few high up soviets say something doesn’t mean it is true that could be said no matter who it is saying it
Secondly the only reason the Americans could Land on normandy was because a number of British contributions,
1 being that they won the Battle of Britain making it possible for the Americans to base their infantry and planes in Britain and be then able to keep supplying the assault,
2nd the original planner for operation overlord was Frederick E. Morgan a British officer, also many of the tactics used on d day was all mostly British including the creation of the artificial harbour and the Hobart’s funnies which included the dd tank which the Americans misused as we told them to send them in closer to the beach but they would not listen, which caused most of the tanks to not get to the beach which is why they struggled miserably on Omaha beach because the silly yanks would not listen to us,
also the use of firefly tank (British added a actual decent gun to the Sherman) Which turned out was really useful on d day as there was more German tanks then we thought and the firefly helped massively and changed the game big time, also the sas on d day were attacking the germans and preventing reinforcements from getting to the allies and the Raf was dropping its earthquake bombs on train lines stoping supplies and tanks from getting to the germans.
Thirdly the British already neutralised the Italian navy in the battle of Taranto and the battle of cape matapan, the Japanese were only beat by the Americans for two reasons 1 American ships used the proximity fuze in there missiles which was given to them by the British in the Tizard mission for free, and 2 American aircraft carriers were poor in construction as when the kamikaze attacks hit their flight deck it destroyed it completely and meant it put that ship out of action as a result they asked the British ships to go first as they had a reinforced armoured flight deck,
as for the u-boats the Americans asked the British for tactical advice as they had failed very badly against them compared to the British, as the British already pioneered many technologies and tactics to deal with them we created something called the WATU which developed all the tactics the allies used to beat the u-boats, and after these tactics was implemented the u-boats got absolutely obliterated.
@@immortalnetwork7917 bro your tiny little island couldn't invade Europe on its own to defeat Germany let alone invade Tokyo you were nothing but a floor mat during the war
If you are taking recommendations a list on the players of the campaigns of Pyrrhus would be interesting 🤔
can i get the name of the music piece that plays while you talk aboz the ussr
Belgium actually ruined France's entire strategy (that was supposed to also cover most of Belgium).
The Maginot Line only extended to the Meuse river. This was by design, with the Meuse considered fairly defensible (big exception here but we'll come to that) and then following the Albert Canal to the sea. Had Belgium remained an ally of France, French troops could have been properly placed on that defensive line with the entire defensive system working as expected, and should an unexpected push happen somewhere say through the Ardennes, there would have been enough reserves to deal with that. But Belgium chose neutrality when Germany remilitarised the Rhineland. That means that should Belgium be attacked, France would not have time to reach the planned strong defensive positions, not possible with a swift attack (especially when the keystone of Belgium's defence, a fortress at the junction between the Meuse and the canal, falls to paratroopers...). France had then to adjust its plans to second-rate defensive positions that hopefully could be reached before the Germans and... you know the rest. Not enough reserves to deal with the push through the Ardennes, that benefited greatly from the confusion of having to rush in Belgium.
Don't forget belgium was also supposed to extend the maginot line across its border too
@@limjustajokel6269 there were fortifications but nothing planned to the level of the Maginot Line. The Maginot Line was that strong because it was the only part where there was no strong natural borders, while there was a significant body of water everywhere else (Rhine, Meuse and the canal to the sea), so a higher concentration of bunkers and artillery was required.
But indeed a few years of buildup would have helped greatly.
If you base your defence strategy on another country that doesn't want that then maybe that's your own fault
@@thibaultd7979 Except they did want to for a long time. Belgium spent the period from 1920 to 1936 allied with France, and only left the alliance to try neutrality after that. The French strategic plans were banking on that alliance, and Belgium threw it away.
Basic American-centrist opinion that Lend-lease was more important than real war that soviets was fighting in the east. More than that, to be more specific about different Lend-lease branches, almost everything was very important, and even soviets could have still fight Germany till 1946 alone, but really without american help they would have survived AND win eventually. The war, real war for survival was in the east, and it was the main front, not north African or western in the late war period when the germans was already heavily weakend by the soviets. It was the country where war itself was going alike the US, and it was self-sustainable after it lost almost a half of its economical strenght. I understand that Pacific front was held by 'Merica almost alone, but its performance in the early war there was like soviet experience: collapse. I mean Pearl Harbor. So your tier list when your beloved country because of like shipment of supplies and defeating a feudal nation + almost destroyed Germany is S tier when the USSR because of the early war defeats is in A tier is hilarious, man. Next time be more objective, please, or people will be releasing their more reasonable thoughts.
He also mentioned that their campaign vs Finland brought them down a tier as well, which combined with their defeats in 1941, is pretty fair honestly. While I do believe the Soviets contributed the most too the downfall of the Axis, this isn't a "how important was the country in WW2" tier list, its a military performance tier list.
@@sageevan1563 It's right, i was honestly offended by US being higher than the Soviet Union, and like every nation in the war, there were many non-perfect moves, and Winter war like part of WW2 is not completly correct, but it is okay. So there is problem in the "performance" meaning is strangely understanded by the author, and is not very simular to my tbh, so we have people who reasonably think that Soviets should be in the D tier and who like me think about them in the S tier.
@@theis3292 Of course I am an American so I will be biased, but "performance-wise" the US supplied herself and her allies throughout the war, single-handedly defeated Japan (for the most part), allowed for the Western Front and Invasion of Italy too take place, and despite some poor tactical decisions on individual battlefields, never truly had a major "defeat" on the scale of Stalingrad for Germany or the winter war for the Soviets. That's why they are "S-tier Performance" during World War 2.
The Soviets are S+ contributors too the downfall of the Reich, but that had to get the shit slapped out of them by Finland and Germany before they could really pull themselves together and win the war. Basically they needed a wake up call to enter into S tier performance, which brings them down to high A tier sadly. Of course this is all my opinion, WW2 is such a broad topic since as he stated, it is really a bunch of independent conflicts that come together with the term "World War 2".
As far as land-lease is concerned, I think most people only look at the Guns, tanks, etc. Which is a shame because land-lease was so much more. The Red Armies logistics trucks were 1/3rd supplied by America. America also helped by sending tons of supply for the soviets to rebuild and make new telephone lines, clothes and most importantly, food. The USSR's sawn land (land for crops) dropped by a staggering 42% and lost 40% of its state-owned farms when Germany was at its fullest extent of its occupation (41 and 42). Not to mention all the farm animals that were failed to be relocated ("the Soviets had lost 7 million of out of 11.6 million horses, 17 million out of 31 million cows, 20 million of 23.6 million pigs and 27 million out of 43 million sheep and goats"). The US sending rations and food supplies was a major role in keeping the army and people fed during the grueling day-to-day war efforts that never gets talked about.
"Basic American-centrist opinion" "your beloved country" You do realise that this guy is Portuguese and not American right?
Does this guy sound American to you?
This was a good tier list. It isn’t perfect but nothing truly is. You came up with good reasons for placement of each nation but Greece probably should have been a bit higher and the ? tier for most those nations makes sense as many joined so they could be in UN automatically (I believe, not fully sure though). Even though, good list and good video. Have a good day/night
Great video as always! Would you be interested in making a video ranking the emperors of the hre? Would like to hear your thoughts about it if you’re into that part of history!
Honestly, no. As far as rankings monarchs go, I'll be doing French kings and Ottoman sultans and that's it. Like I've said in the pinned comment, I want to move away from broad generalized content and do more localized topics with a much smaller scale.
@@spectrum1140 Fair enough, looking forward to whatever you’re gonna make next!
Can't wait for the 20 part "Cold War Preformance" series
Honestly, Romania was the ultimate turncoat of the war - few know, that they were Poland's ally at the start... The ONLY polish ally, the allies just guaranteed its independence, and not only it did not help, it immediately bent over german threat of war, and gave out the polish government that ran away from country to direct the polish resistance from exile to german imprisonment, AND they stabbed germany in the back when the war turned. It's amazing they got off so easily with it all, in earlier centuries their diplomatic reputation would be in tatters for a loong time after this stunt.
Guess Machiavelli ruled this country at the time.
Because either way , we had to choose between 2 cruel dictators : Hitler and Stalin
The main reason fot joining the germans , was fear that the soviets were a bigger treat , and wouldn’t you know , we were right , cause those bastards colonised us by force , evicted our nice royal family (best rulers Romania ever had) and forced us to become commies …
Till we pulled an epic revolution on their asses
Do you have any source on the whole polish government resistance thing?I didn t find anything about it.
@@haxel8929 Just search the phrase "Polish government-in-exile ", it existed in Paris, then London throughout, and after the war until the fall of communism, and had profound influence on making holocaust and other atrocities well known in the west.
@@NylfaenNoldoreth Yeah, I found it.Didn t find the part about Romania giving them to german imprisonement tho.
You massively underrated Greece but overall good list
Also i'm just going to say this about the Italian war participation, for one most Italians didn't enjoy fighting for an ally that found them racially inferior and would bring it up at every joint staff meeting they had. Other than a complete lack of war support the Italians were not prepared for an invasion of anyone in 1939 and Mussolini and all of his top advisors stated they would only be ready in the late 40s early 50s and any war before that moment would see the Italians under supplied and ill prepared, which they were. Also, despite Rommel being *so* fantastic, he ignored the many warnings from Ettore Bastico that Malta would leave the front without supplies and whattya fuckin know Malta crippled the African front and caused a defeat in Africa. And while at times Bastico was too timid or conservative, he would be proven correct and Rommel the fool and it was Rommel's breaking of the chain of command that would lead to his biggest defeats in Africa, making all of Rommel's failings in Africa his own rather than the Italians.(EDIT) Forgot to sum it up, so basically the Italians didn't want to fight in WW2, weren't equipped or prepared for WW2, and at all levels foolhardy German commanders wasted limited Italian equipment and supplies while simultaneously blaming the Italians for every loss. With that said I would not change their list position.
If you factor in lend lease as a reason to push the americans into S tier you really have to review the UK again. The british navey pretty much single handed *allowed* lend lease to happen at all. If the american war effort also had to deal with the atlantic and arctic conveys they would have struggled much more against Japan.
Other than that you guys were useless.
Could not agree more, these people are blind to the truth, too much American ass kissing if you ask me.
Facts
If so, Canada should also be higher since their contribution to the Atlantic supply routes can't be understated. Though I am a Canadian myself, so I'm biased.
@@ArkaSaurusRex218 completely agree! The allied powers and the battle of the atlantic gets overlooked so much but it's as important as the battle of britain to making winning the war possible... On *every* front
France the major "superpower", with their big army, maginot line, knowing that Germans are coming, with suport from UK got rekt in few weeks and ended up being favourite place for German soldiers and officers for going on vacation. While the other half of the country collaborates. And you give them D.
Full support of the UK with 1/4 of the BEF, British who also through that Germans would go trough Belgium and got rekt the same way but their ass covered by the French and other allies from Belgium and Netherlands. The Free French Forces played a good role too despite having WW1 weapons.
And you can say whatever you want about vacation or idk what but France had one of the most important resistance, less busy in killing eachothers like in Yugoslavia but rather work in cooperation with the allies, effective sabotages, spying and assaults
if you wouldve payed attention you wouldve saw that france also represents the french government in exile, and vichy france represents the french government that surrendered, honestly the french definetly deserve C tier, the french resistance was a MASSIVE help in the western front
@@danimag3904 the resistance was not a massive help, it was a useful distraction. But after activation they as much as contributed to German distractions also hindered allied efforts just as much. The myth of the French resistance is painted by french revisionists who ignored the fact most of them were the equivalent of domestic terrorists both left and right that destabilized France before the war. Very few were actually de gaulists and many who were just were looking for allied supply to loot. A better resistance organization were the yugoslavians and Czechs.
@@charlesramirez587 That was true before 1942 but after that the resistance became stronger and better organized to become a real para military group in 1944, Eisenhower himself said the FFI were équivalent to 10-15 divisions.
Yugoslavia was a good mess too, maybe killed more of their own than Germans.
The myth of the French resistance was a thing with De Gaulle but nowadays its a new trend to do the exact opposite and despise that movement.
Average Brainless French Basher Fan VS The Chad God French History Enjoyer.
14:36 Bulgaria being a Giga Chad putting as low an effort as possible. And Romania changing it's alliance from the Axis to the Allies and still keeping Transylvania (which is the whole reason why Romania joined the Axis in the first place, it was blackmailed that Transylvania will be given to Hungary).
Romania did not want to join the war as the lands they have got after the union were wanted by all our neightbours. But after the soviets bulgarians and hungarians stole our land while we threatened by Germany, a new government took over and formed legionary romania. a pro german government which saw that the only way romania could regain their lost land was to join the german war effort and Hitler unnoficially stated that Romania could regain transilvanya if they invaded the soviet union. But after the king retook power over the country they invaded german controlled hungary
@@baffledwaffle6319 Yeah, I know. I'm Romanian.
@@RhiannonSenpai oh
@@baffledwaffle6319 “stole” isn’t a right statement. Southern Dobruja was populated by Bulgarians and was given an agreement to be returned to its rightful owner. Romania backstabbed Bulgaria in the Second Balkan war and then “stole” Southern Dobruja from us.
@@FreshVito_bg honastly its a Little more complicated but i do agree that i might have exagerated a bit
As an Italian, who are you to say that we get a “D” tier?? We were on the winning side the whole time… or whoever was winning in that moment…
The US S tier doesnt really account for the fact they were the only belligerent who never faced a direct threat of invasion (at least on the mainland). It's very easy to win the production game when your factories and civilians were never bombed after all. You admitted they made several tactical errors on the Western front (which will always be a sideshow the the East) and I feel you also did nationalist China dirty by ranking them so low even though others pointed out they basically tied down the Japanese army.
Not saying the US dont deserve a high ranking, but most of their performance was essentially coasting off the fact they were already the world's largest economy before the war and suffered next to no economic destruction throughout. Moreover, lend-lease during the curcial early days of Operation Barbarossa took place before they even entered the war, so it isn't fair to weight it so highly by the rules you set. Hard to say who should be in S tier in light of this, but the US entered the war with incredible advantages, whereas I feel high rankings should be due to disproportionately good performance (like the Finns).
I will admit their 'performance' post-war is S tier though, setting up just about every global institution and rebuilding Western Europe for the Cold War, but that's of course beyond the scope of this video.
Completely agree.
Not only did the US went to WWII with the biggest economy on earth, it returned from it with an even bigger one
If the American Navy loses Midway to the Japanese or Coral Sea, then we'd see how long until Japan threatened the US West Coast.
The front where most of the Luftwaffe, pretty much all the Kriegsmarine, and 1/3+ of the German army was destroyed plus bombardment of German war industry was a "sideshow"?
Your essentially saying US doesn't deserve S tier because it couldn't be touched due to its blessed Geography. You know how stupid that sounds. I suppose UK deserves a lower tier because it couldn't be invaded due to the English Channel.
The biggest reason why America was so important is the Pacific. The Allies were getting absolutely steam rolled by the Japanese Empire, America nearly single handedly dealt with a super charged Japan while also sending troops Europe.
2:37 I totally agree as tbh France won much more wars than they lost throughout history, I mean they were an absolute beast of a country on the battlefield under the legendary Napoleon who is arguably the greatest military tactician of all time
Yoursapp is my favourite country from ww2
It's funny how your view on the US conduct of the war was inverted compared to others view. Often ppl first think of your current view on the US war effort and then switch to thinking that the Soviets we're more instrumental in winning the war.
All 3 were important and the UK not in the least without the UK (and the Poles) there would be no ULTRA, atomic bomb or cavity magnatron among many other things no side would have been able to win without the other.
They where, did America send so many soldiers on the front? No didn’t think so
@paulurban2472 the soviets would've most collapsed if it weren't for lend lease. All the trucks, trains, and food were insanely instrumental for soviet succes. Why do you think the soviets main truck was the American Studebaker
@@paulurban2472 The US joined the war later then some of the countries and unlike the Germans and Russians they were not building a huge army to steal territory from the weaker nations the scumbag Russians were in it to jack land just like the Germans. By the end of the war the US had 14 million men in uniform if they had the balls they would have kicked the Russians out of Eastern Europe but they just didnt want to fight anymore they actually cared about their troops. The iron curtain was the end result.
fact that you put Hungary next to Poland warms my heart. still think Poland deserved better.
I would like to see a napoleonic war tier list
World War 3 performance tierlist
One change I would make is Britain's performance to A tier. Why?
Because the British were ultimately responsible for getting the land lease to the Soviet Union, which as you said was necessary for the Soviet war effort.
also, the british intelligence agency absolutely running circles around german intelligence. the brits definetly deserve A tier
Spectrum then: says the f word 10 times a video
Spectrum now: only says the a word or b word every now and then
That has literally happened only once. The Ranking of Roman Emperors video, and that's it.
@@spectrum1140 still funny it was a one time occurrence
Anyways congrats on 50K