The Rise and Fall of the Nazi War Machine
Вставка
- Опубліковано 10 лют 2025
- Unlock the secrets of Germany's WWII success and ultimate downfall! Dive deep into the military doctrines of Auftragstaktik and Blitzkrieg that fueled early triumphs, but discover the blunders that led to their downfall. Join the debate in the comments!
→ Subscribe for new videos at least twice a week!
www.youtube.co...
Love content? Check out Simon's other UA-cam Channels:
Biographics: / @biographics
Geographics: / @geographicstravel
MegaProjects: / @megaprojects9649
SideProjects: / @sideprojects
Casual Criminalist: / @thecasualcriminalist
TopTenz: / toptenznet
Today I Found Out: / todayifoundout
Highlight History: / @highlighthistory
XPLRD: / @simonstestchannel
Business Blaze: / @brainblaze6526
Simon's Social Media:
Twitter: / simonwhistler
Instagram: / simonwhistler
One word: oil. Production can be done with coal and lignite, but aviation and mechanized divisions need petrol and diesel.
TiK made (several) very interesting and well researched videos about this.
Redirecting the 6th Army to Stalingrad instead of taking the oilfields in the south was the beginning of the end for Nazi Germany.
True, but i hadnt the courage to refer. Old school rules. Or worse ...invading U.K. Gimme break!
From memory, wasn't it a case that Hitler wanted the oil from the Caucuses and Halder decided to go for Moscow instead?
@@spudgun1978also working from memory but I believe you are right. Halder wanted to drive on Moscow but Hitler ordered an abrupt southward turn toward Kiev and the caucuses oil fields. Guderian flew to Germany to convince him but then ended up agreeing with Hitler. Then they got bogged down in attritional stuff, lost a little momentum, Hitler panicked a little and decided after all that Army Group Center should drive on Moscow, but by that point it was like December and the whole push froze solid a few 100km’s outside Moscow
Careful with Tik or however you say his name, he’s a raging propagandist
A friend of mine (who rather enjoys debating me) once asked:
"What do you think was the most important battle of the Eastern Front? And don't say Stalingrad!"
I gave him a tri-answer: the Battle of Britain, the Battle of the Atlantic, and Operation Barbarossa itself. Germany effectively lost once it failed to knock out Britain through its air or its sea campaign, and then invaded the USSR anyway assuming it would all work out. Fairly similar answer to what I'm hearing from you, Simon.
I'd say the battle of Moscow and the German failure to capture the Soviet capital. Although the Soviets were prepared by moving factories, staff etc east, I believe the fall of Moscow would have a great demoralizing and destabilising effect the Soviet army, command structure and the country as a whole and would possibly have lead to the fall of the Soviet Union
The siege of Budapest
@@Alex-hu5egthey were already far deep in the jaws of destruction by the time of Budapest
But two out of three of those were on the Western front?
@@YannickoYT Yeah, dude got a couple of those mixed up.
“You fell victim to the most classic blunder second only to: “Never get involved in a land war in Asia”
I enjoyed this video. Thanks Simon. If I were to add two points for consideration, they would be: 1) the Soviets getting the intelligence that the Japanese intended to focus on the South and Pacific, which let them bring their Eastern troops to bear on the Germans. 2) Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor did bring the U.S. into the conflict, but they also took a lot of troops and material into the Pacific. If the U.S. military complex was uniquely focused on Germany, they could have taken an even bigger (and faster) beating.
There is a famous interview with a Russian soldier, "Blitzkrieg? That became easy. We waited in our holes until the tanks went by, then we turned around and shot them."
And obviously the crew for editing, sound, lightning, kung fu choreography and special effects.
Keep up the good work writers and Simon. You all give us history and news in a good format.
I think a major point is that their early success (and subsequent momentum) were heavily reliant on not only speed, but surprise. The allies were desperate to believe war could be avoided and so were poorly prepared. Add the new tactics and it's no surprise it took years to react and respond in force
Early Allied intelligence was not so intelligent - e.g the Venlo incident, the insecure merchant marine codes (and no doubt much, much more).
Yeah, I think that was, in and of itself, the biggest blunder. Had they grabbed mainland Europe and stopped, they could have consolidated their gains, put out the couple remaining fires (like de Gaulle) and I think Britain and the US would have been more likely to have sent strongly worded letters, than tanks. Part of winning battles (and wars for that matter) is knowing when enough is enough and stopping.
I am in the USMC rn, and I can see how both auftragstaktik and blitzkrieg have their own versions in the United States that have been massively adopted. Auftragstaktik being our strong and independent NCO Corps, and Blitzkrieg being combined arms warfare.
"combined arms warfare" came into its own in the Allied push of 1918 which brought WW1 to a conclusion.
Nice to see you guys lifted the “Meddling Hitler” scapegoat argument straight out of every German general’s biography. Going for the Oil in the south was way more important than taking empty Moscow.
Well said
Hitler for the most part followed the German generals plans. And even his "meddling" was strategically sound. It's just when it came down to it in a war to the death soviet power was superior and soviet will stronger.
Plus look what happened to Nappy-Whappy. He took Moscow, but it didn't change a thing. Hitler's generals were just as arrogant and stupid as he was when it came to the Eastern Front, but in different ways.
Wrong !!! Moscow was logistic and production super-hub of USSR. 80% rails go through it (Napoleonic times were completely different - Moscow was not even a capital then).
While I totally agree the oil was an important factor in that decision, the meddling would be one seriously important variable in a multivariate. Not just on the Eastern front, but throughout the war.
Find someone who loves to think about you as much as Simon thinks about Nazis losing ❤
@@vyvianalcott1681That is because the History Channel couldn't figure how aliens were involved.
@@badluck5647😂
Hitler also had inept generals beneath him, Goering being somewhat high on his own supply and he didn't utilise his very, very capable generals as well as he could have, Rommel being a good example. You're analysis is spot on really. In short, they bit off more than they could chew.....
Yeah, no. Rommel was a mediocre commander. He won a few victories in the beginning of the Desert campaign. He continually lost once the Brits stopped being inept in doctrine and tactics. He was a poster child for Nazi propaganda.
I like these types of videos. It’s like a thought essay. Keep it up
Perun has a great video essay about how corruption destroys armies. And whoa boy were the Nazis corrupt. So I would also throw corruption in as a reason why the Wermacht turned from unstoppable to a paper tiger.
I love Perun's videos.
Like how they used all the money destined for civilian car manufacturing in order to build tanks.
There was only one corrupt leader in the nazi government. Goring. Others were either fanatics or cinical bureaucrats.
That and the Nazis leadership going all drug and alcohol fueled while decision making like I dunno modern Russia.
Saturday night delight Simon! 👏
You have my undivided attention!
Its a good expose. I would have added a short segment on the lack of coordination between Japan/Germany as allies. You touched on it with Germany declaring war on USA. However, how it related to War with USSR was missing as a "What IF"". In this case, had Japan planned or even feinted it was planning an attack on the USSRs Far east and forced Stalin to keep the Siberian bases forces there rather than transfer them back to Moscow as a last ditch effort to save the USSR's capitol in Winter of '41-42. Granted this required Japan's choices of nixing their strategy of southward expansion and move to the Asian mainland and overcome their stinging defect by Zukov at the battle of Khalkhin Go. However, with better coordination between Germany and Japan... things could have worked out much differently.
I was just about to comment the same thing. If Warographics is going to play what ifs, the Japanese-Soviet Non-aggression Pact, was a big one.
Japan was not going to mess with the soviet union after the USSR destroyed them in The Battle of Khalkhin Gol
@@registrado54 This was a thought experiment... A what if... I referenced the battle directly and implicitly its outcome of the non-aggression pact. You saw how well Hitler honored two non aggressions one with the Poles and one with the Soviets. Its not unreasonable to guess the same could have happened with Japan and the USSR in 1941/42.
Regardless, had the Japanese actively been planning and attack north in the eastern asian continent Stalin would have been forced to keep more troops on that border and not transfer them to the Moscow front in Jan '42 counter offensive that effectively saved Moscow. Albeit with a ton of help from Mother nature and crappy German planning.
Keep in mind its not far fetched. Had Germany been coordinating their plans with Japan better, rather than in secret, Japan might have gone that route. Remember in Operation Barbarossa was a huge success in most peoples eyes in the summer/fall of ''41 and USSR was looking like it would capitulate or be forced too. Why not move north to get some spoils. USSR could never reinforce and japan would have time and suprise.
Plus the key thing was a feint to the north. It was a a soviet spy that informed Stalin that japan wasnt planning such a move. Perhaps he could have been discovered and eliminated before that message was delivered.
plausible
@@registrado54 None of reality happens in a vacuum. The USSR were barely hanging on vs the Germans, and that's with shipping most of their Eastern divisions to the West. A combined German & Japan fronts, is entirely different to the Battle of Khalkhin Gol.
All hinges of course if the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor or not first as well.
One word. Hitler. Hitler decided to give up on England. Hitler decided to honor the agreement with Japan (though they didn't by not attacking the USSR in the east) and declare war on the US. Hitler decided to attack USSR before he was done with England. As Simon said, Hitler made hundreds of stupid decisions in USSR, not letting the 6th retreat out of Stalingrad before they were encircled just one of many. Hitler was the cause of WWII and the failure of Germany
He caused the war and also ended it
Hitler gave up on England because his attempts to force it to back out *failed.* The Luftwaffe couldn't destroy the RAF, attempts to bomb British cities failed to damage morale, and recent studies have concluded that an amphibious invasion would have failed, anyway.
whitout hitler germany would invade europe anyways
Really easy to blame a dead man,as all of those on trial in 1946-52 did, distorting the narrative.
Hitler was not far off when he made his conclusion to make war with the us, after all, the USA had done everything but put troops in the field and planes in the air. They were effectively at war with Germany by that point anyway.
And from 1941, the USA was supplying the ussr with the material that the ussr needed to maintain and later win the war. The war was won at Stalingrad, compounded by the loss at Kursk. D day only prevented a communist west Europe, bagration is what put the final nail in Germany’s coffin.
And let us consider how much more difficult it would have been for Germany to win in the east had Britain fell. It was stalins assumption that hitler wouldn’t open a war on two fronts that meant that the frontier wasn’t maned properly hence the initial success of Barbarossa, the soviet armed forces were in the mist of a military expansion and overhaul due to be complete by 1943, and so the alarm bells that would instantly sound in the east had Britain fallen would have spelt a campaign that would be near unwinable for the German army.
And was hitler the cause of world war 2? Very interesting debate, I believe it was chamberlain’s ineptitude during Munich in 1938 that made war inevitable.
Kinda wrong tbh but fine
Simon is would love it if you did a video on the swedish empires rise and fall
Also on Swedish eugenics
Actually that would be really interesting I don’t really know any Swedish history.
@@gamerjaqi7873 Look up Gustavus Adolphus, the Lion of the North. Sweden's greatest king, general, and overall just a mad lad. He was instrumental in the development of 17th century tactics too
It's amazing to me how the Nazi party and Napoleon failed so miserable it goes to show not everyone learned from history
You mean like Russia going into Afghanistan where the British Empire failed? Or the U.S. doing the same?
Not the mongols! Yeaaassssh
US helped USSR to win the war in the east through lend/lease. They have come to regret it.
Well, if you think about it, many of Hitler's mistakes were directly tied to his almost superstitious fear of repeating Napoleon's. Some Germans wrote in their journals that they felt they were being shadowed by the ghostly specter of Napoleon's Grande Armée.
Yeah learned not to fvck with Britain.
Another thing you can add is that the USSR survived in large part because of the American supplies that started pouring in after operation Barbarossa started…the US was already sending Britain supplies, so ramping up production was easy. Had Germany dealt with the UK before operation Barbarossa, it’s possible that the US wouldn’t have supplied the USSR with supplies at all. Or at the very least, they wouldn’t have been able to send so much supplies from the get go.
i believe tk history did a video on that. the Americans did help but the Soviets most likely still would have been able to win but perhaps with heavier casualties.
Facts
If Germany did defeat or force the British to surrender/make peace (as was their plan in real life) and with the us not in the war. Would Russia still get the supplies through the lend lease act from the British and Americans. That would make a huge impact in the war
Would say it’d highly like no, definitely not from Britain and as far as the USA is concerned there’s no real advantage to send supplies to the USSR and risk greater tensions with Nazi Germany
The Soviets would definitely have not received the materials they did. Any settlement with Britain would, of course, not allowed them to send anything, and the sheer distance for any US supplies would be unreasonable - and unlikely that the German would allow passage of it near Britain either.
@@danielatkins6117 The first thing the US did after Germany invaded the Soviet Union, 6 months before Pearl Harbour and the US entering the war, was for the US Ambassador to the Soviet Union in Moscow to go to the Soviet government and ask them what supplies they needed, proceed to take detailed notes over the next several days, and the US government started shipping those supplies to the Soviet Union within months, well before the US entered the war.
Germany declaring war on the US was useful in that it allowed the Germans to attack the convoys carrying US military aid to the Soviet Union. It also allowed the Germans to attack the US Navy warships escorting some of the convoys going to Britain from the US. Even if the Germans hadn't declared war on the US, it was just a matter of time before some U-Boat captain mistook a USN destroyer escorting a convoy going to Britain for a British destroyer and torpedoed it, which would have brought the US into the war anyway.
And Germany defeating the British was pure fantasy. How do you get air superiority over Britain when none of your effective fighters have the range to fly further north than London?
I like the line in “Dial of Destiny”. .. “Germany didn’t lose the war, Hitler did”
Interesting historical video, really enjoyed it, thanks.
They tried to do too much all at once, underestimated their enemies and made questionable strategic decisions, if they’d eased up on some of their intentions then maybe they’d have been more successful.
I love these videos so much. Everything is open minded and historical facts. Always feel educated and have learned something new after every video.
I just wanna say, this was a good video and I really like how it was based less on outright fact and more of a thought experiment on what could have happened. I think the points you brought up were pretty damning, and I hadn’t really considered them before
Germany did the same they did in WWI: They had the equipment, and they had good soldiers... But they made questionable strategic decisions that resulted in their long term defeat.
It was Hitler's fault. Instead of letting his generals continue to do their job based on the success they had up to that point, Hitler's ego couldn't handle not being the one making all the decisions. He saw himself as a military genius when being a general and making military strategies was never his talent. He was meant to be a great leader and public speaker. Nothing else. Throw in the fact that he fired all the generals that made him successful in European conquest and replaced them with others which made things worse. At that point, Germany was doomed and put themselves in the same position that always dooms them. A two front war.
Germany fought well in WWI. It's their allies who were slacking badly.
Germany wasn’t defeated in WW1
@@christophermarriott1681umm name mistake Hitler did. Give me 1 of them and I will see if its correct.
Can I state the obvious here … Germany and Japan were opposed by the whole world. They were outnumbered in every sense of the word, and yet pulled up a defensive. Individual countries stood no chance, what-so-ever. A two front war was obviously a bit of a silly thing to do … but well, we all profited by Nazi Germanys loss. However, no army per capita could have beaten the German army.
Totally unrelated but since you mentioned the Western idea of American Sherman's beat the Nazis all the way back to Berlin. It reminded me of the movie Kelly's Heroes, if you like old war movies I HIGHLY recommend it since it's both a war movie with real drama and a comedy with just how much of a cluster f**k the final days of the war and France's liberation really was. The movie also features a VERY young Clint Eastwood playing a jaded and cunning private in a forward sentury unit and a even younger Donald Sutherland playing a spaced out hippie from a Sherman Division attempting to pull off a heist together. There are also a few really hilarious cameios Carroll O'Connor (Archie Bunker) as an American Major General... such a great movie.
You forgot Don Rickles as "Crapgame" so many good actors in it
I second that emotion great movie⚛😀
@@thejudgmentalcat Holy crap I am going to hell for sure now! You're right though my brain somehow rolled Crapgame and Mulligan into the same person but Crapgame's got some of the best lines in the whole movie (in my opinion) the phone call where he all of a sudden gets disgusted with the person on the other end and yells in the to the phone "What the hell's a matter with you? Stop crying!"
@@CartoonHero1986 I'll never forget, "Maybe the guy's a Republican" 🤣
Oddball : To a New Yorker like you, a hero is some type of weird sandwich, not some nut who takes on three Tigers.
Love this video Iv always talked to my friends about these topics about WW2
Hey Warographics, could you, please, make a video about who *financed* the Nazi War Machine?
Not only who, but how, its functionality and demise.
I plan on reading Shiller's Rise and Fall of the Third Reich and in the spirit of this video, I'll keep it in mind as I read it.
A good summation by Warographics. I'd add a couple of "yes but" or "yes and":
* If we are playing "what ifs", then the Japanese-Soviet Non-aggression Pact, was a huge factor.
* Hitler actually made a few *correct* military decisions early in the war that went against his Generals. Which obviously provided an ego boost to an egotistic. So you can't really make the sweeping explanation "Hitler was a terrible General", although his later exploits very well tend to that idea. And the "Meddling Hitler idea" is a little bit to simplistic, especially if we are taking this from the post-war German general's testimonies, defending their legacy and quite literally their life.
* Operation Barbarossa was also delayed by another factor - when Hitler had to swing south for the invasion of Yugoslavia, and to help Mussolini in his failing Greece invasion. I think you missed this also very important factor that contributed to the delayed operation.
* I would also add to the "Britain taken out" what if - if that was the case, then getting supplies to the USSR to fight Nazi Germany, would have been made a lot more difficult. To the point that, USSR may have collapsed, as they only survived to fight on the war with the US & UK assistance in supplies.
The initial delay to Barbarossa was also attributed to intervention in Greece, but that seems too easy to believe.
And that is one of the reasons the Allies never carried out the assassination of Hitler since that would have put someone competent in charge and not forced the German High Command to deal with his meddling.
Great analysis, the one thing missing, in my opinion is, the allied bombing campaign that leveled the German industrial base. Though if we go with the hypothetical, the UK is out of the equation then the campaign never would have been possible.
On the tactics point; History shows that revolutionary new tactics can win quick wars and battles, but that nations on the winning side fail to continue to develop and innovate. Napoleon had the same problem once his enemies cottoned onto the idea of having competent tacticians as generals instead of just members of the aristocracy regardless of ability, and then figured out his Corps system and started copying it. Napoleon even wrote about his frustrations about how his enemies had copied his ideas and had gotten good at it. Germany made the same blunder. The various nations of the Allies figured out how to do rapidly moving combined arms.
The other thing is on German industry, for one, t he amount of political infighting seems to have severely hamstrung development but also it's ability to iterate. The celebrated Merlin engine started out at about 1000hp, while also being a very reliable engine. It was developed and iterated, while other, less successful engines were phased out, ending as an engine that put out around 2000hp, and yet it was replaced in the Spitfire by the Griffon, which eventually reached 2500hp. The equivalent German engines, the DBB601 and DB605 just could not keep up. And they largely ended the war with equipment that had been in use since 1939; the BF109, Panzer 4, KAR98 rifle. An early Spitfire bears little resemblance to a late war version.
To make a RTS analogy; Germany got up their 'Tech Tree' quite fast early on, then stopped development, meanwhile the Allies just kept going up and overtook the Germans. Even things like the ME262; both the US and UK had equivalent aircraft coming online and even then, again Allied pilots still worked out how to fight the ME262 regardless repeating the 'learning and adapting top tactics' point above.
Even if there was more parity in industrial base, the Allies ability to learn, adapt and overcome German tactics, as well as a more focused industrial development cycle, have always been critical advantages that meant Germany would always end up losing in the end,
They won at first because the Generals were permitted to do their job. They lost later because they were interfered with. Just be glad they lost. For everyone who wishes for a time traveller to eliminate Hitler prior to the outbreak of the war, consider this: What if he was, but was replaced by someone just as belligerent, but who was competent?
yes another good point I even read a WW2 thriller once based on that premise can't recall the title but think the author was named taylor ⚛😀
Real convenient for the generals to claim the success was all theirs, and the failure all hitler’s fault😂 blame the dead guy!
This is not an entirely accurate comment. They won at first because of many factors, not just the "Generals were permitted to do their job". Also Hitler actually made some *good* military decisions that were against his Generals recommendations early on, that actually concluded in German victory. Which obviously swelled his ego for future failure later.
The german generals blundered just as much as Hitler did. They just survived to shift the blame to him. Don't believe them
Very convenient timing of this! Been going back down Nazi rabbit hole since New Year’s!
The most logical and realistic counterfactual to explore from my POV is that of France having simply guarded their own northern flank, instead of assuming the Belgians had it covered. Germany wouldn't have simply been able to bypass the Maginot line, and would've had to go through it instead. They might still have won, but at an exponentially larger cost, (meaning less strength left to go after the UK and USSR with) and CERTAINLY would've taken a MUCH longer time, time the other allies could've used to gather strength and prepare a counterattack.
Yeah….and then the Germans would have had a much larger chance at winning the war. They wouldn’t have been as confident that Russia would have fallen as easily as France. It actually helped the Allies in the end that Poland and France fell so easily because it made the nazis way over confident. 🤷🏼
And the sole reason the nazis lost was that they didn’t have the factories that the Allies had….the tide of production that the Americans were able to produce with capitalism completely swamped the nazis….it’s actually quite easy to see exactly why the nazis lost. There’s no argument. It’s an objective fact. I’m struggling to understand why people are still confused on exactly why the nazis lost so bad after having such initial and unparalleled success in the beginning
i think Y'all did a great job! You make a lot of things that really make me go 🤔 Hmmm !:-)
I’ve wondered if Hitler attacked the Soviet Union because he felt that Stalin would attack first if he saw how long the Battle of Britain was taking?
Stalin wasn’t known for being the trusting type, and I’m sure he had people in high places (purges notwithstanding) who kept telling him Hitler would sooner or later attack
I’m sure that was part of it. But I also think hitler wanted everything way too fast. Some of his generals wanted him to wait to 43-45 to attack the Soviets. And hitler also thought they would sweep through them a lot faster . I think he figured if they could get through Stalingrad, there wouldn’t be much resistance on the eastern part of Russia
Hitler apparently though that Stalin would attack first, so he had to act. Only rarely is this mentioned as motivation, even if unrealistic in practice. No trust between dictators . . .
It’s almost impossible to miss how modern militaries, particularly the US, have implemented these very same systems and philosophies today. Modern US military doctrine puts incredible emphasis on having all areas of the military support each other. Infantry and tanks and artillery form a symbiotic relationship. Air support is huge, but with air support you need naval support to get them there sometimes. The list goes on and on.
And on the other part, the US now has a substantial NCO core, which everyone in US military leadership not only sees as crucial for mission success, but is also a point of great pride as well. Morals of any shape or form aside, 1930-40 Germany had a superb military.
I always like to try and imagine what goes through the mind of the first person on a battlefield. The first dogfight, parachute, firefight etc.
Very fascinating.
All points are true, but you missed a very big blunder. Oil, so necessary for a mechanized army to function, even at a basic level. With it's under-equipped navy unable to maintain Far-east shipping connections, Germany lost most sources of oil very early in the war. Add to that it's fanatical desire to go after Moscow, rather than concentrating on Stalingrad in order to cut off the Russian army from the oilfields at Ploesti, to the South. A good supply of oil may not have won the war for them, but lack of it certainly was a major factor in their slow demise.
moscow was the main transportation hub ,
that's why the generals poritized it over the south
As far as I remember army group south main goal was modern day Azerbaijan and it's oil fields, but they stopped in Stalingrad
@@palawanczech scout units made it to the oil fields
The invention of the Jerry Can (Vinzenz Grünvogel) was very impactful for the rapid advance of their tanks
It began to falter when the mustache guy invested in wonder weapons
From everything I've read and from all the analysis I've read I think you guys are right. Opened up too many fronts against far superior economies.
@@Foxy-if8pt The other problem was Hitler was obsessed with Russia. Rommel repeatedly argued for more resources in North Africa and the Mediterranean as it was abundant in oil and capturing the Suez canal would have been fatal to Britain. If Hitler had been able to take Russia, the world as we know it would be very different.
Prussian minister of war Erich Von Falkenhayn nailed it when stated: "The east gives nothing back"
For the early success, you could also use Japan's advance in the same way across the Pacific. With Pearl disabled, though not completely out, Japan bonzai charged the Philippines, seized several islands and Malaysia, and was threatening Australia at the time of Coral Sea, just 5 months into the war. Japan controlled a large portion of the seas outright and contested beyond those often.
As a fallen war machine myself, this was very insightful
just to point out the Germans had no realistic expectation of successfully crossing the channel
they had if they had beat the RAF and maybe the Royal Marine, with air superiority it wouldn't have been a struggle to supply their troops by sea.
So the Heinz and the French's competition goes back a lot further than i thought
Honestly i would have loved to see an instense 2 hour deep dive into this, rather than a seemingly hasty 20 minute showing for the topic at hand. Still lived though!
It also helped that the guy who invented the modern Blitz that Germany used, Percy Hobart, was a Brit who Churchill called out of retirement to show how to get around it. Heinz Guderian had all of Percy’s writings translated into German and used the tactics.
Hans! Fire up the time machine, we have a list of mistakes to correct! 😂
Over engineered mechanized warfare was a blunder in it of its own. Tiger tank, huge train howitzer etc…
Doesn’t help that German logistics was mainly reliant on horse drawn wagons.
I'm surprised you never mentioned Italy?
Very interesting take, I definitely agree with you on Japan, I think Russia would've been a problem no matter how well equipped the soldiers were or how quickly they managed to take Moscow, it's just that kind of place to invade and then hold onto even with England in the bag.
Many thanks really appreciate the stuff you put out 👍
This is a propaganda piece ,paid by Israel to take our minds off the genocide they commit on Palestinian people.
Italy for most of WW2 was a comical parody
@@DogeickBateman if they'd have dug a little deeper in Tripoli in the 30's,
they may have been a better ally ....
Don’t ever say “would of” again
I broadly agree with your points, however you failed to mention the colossal waste of money that the so-called Wonder Weapons were.
Good analysis
This explanation was fine - but I'd add another few mins to discuss to waste of time, money, manpower and resources used trying to enact the Final solution and build wonder weapons as well as the loss of military acumen at the lower level in the early years of the war and at the higher level as it went on via infighting and purges.
Before I even clicked play, in a nutshell; over-confidence led Hitler to invade the USSR to encompass them into a multi-front war campaign that, given "Blitzkrieg" didn't take Moscow before the onset of Russian Winter, outstretched their resources - human, equipment, supplies, fuel - to unsustainable levels. Exacerbated by tactical & even strategic blunders, this allowed the Allies to regroup on both fronts, now with the influx of full-blown support & engagement by the USA. From there, more poor decisions by Hitler including the failure to retreat en masse from the campaign in the East to focus on the Western Front, led to the inevitable collapse of the German war machine. In the end, America's victory in development of the nuclear bomb meant it would have ended badly for Germany regardless.
Blitzkrieg was arguably modelled on the Australian General Sir John Monash. He pioneered the combined arms tactics in ww1
@SimonWhistler Hey, can you make a video about the Texas Situation or include it in your Situation Room video this week?! It would be amazing to see you cover it!
Simon for a PHD in history right now
I thought Simon would have mentioned that Blitzkrieg relied heavily on Methamphetamine (Meth Pervitin) which allowed their soldiers to fight without the need to rest.
Soldiers win Battles, Logistics wins Wars. Everything is just a distraction.
I don't understand why you wouldn't try and finish the UK off before starting a new war with the USSR. Also it seems like Mussolini's ineptitude kept drawing Hitler into more fronts like Africa and Greece. I am glad Hitler lost, but it seems like his eyes were bigger than his stomach when it came to opening new fronts.
Well indeed. Apart from the UK's success in North Africa and supporting antinazi groups in occupied or nearly occupied Europe, it brought the US in earlier than it would have. Forcing a defeat of the UK, although I doubt Britain would have given up like France. And building upon it, before launching Barberossa would have been the only way for a Nazi victory. Thank God there is a sea between Britain and France, Churchill was a stubborn bastard and his absurd belief that slavs were inferior to Germans turned out to be complete BS.
Well... At the beginning of this vid. I was coming up with my own points. But you pretty much covered them all & ruined my fun... 😁😎 Good job mate... By the way Simon. I spent 2 years in the UK. Nov. 80-Oct. 82. USAF. You Brits are good people. 👍💪
We like you too.
@@EllieMaes-Grandad , Cheers Mate. 😁😎
0:49 Pff!!
Good luck, Brain Boy...
...I haven't thought about Anything in a while!
😀
8:24 Eh...
They got lucky, Brain Boy.
🤣
11:19 From what I've gathered over the years studying WW2, Germany primarily allied with Japan for its navy. Italy's navy was stuck in the Mediterranean bathtub and Germany's navy paled compared to the allies' naval capacity (even after France fell and before the U.S. got involved). However, Japan had carriers and the two largest battleships ever constructed, and two more of those leviathans were planned to be built. It was a no-brainer to ally with the Imperial Japanese. Hitler knew there was a chance of fighting the Americans and wanted to stack the odds better in his favor. Obviously, it didn't work but I just wanted to shed some light on their thought process.
You’re mostly right but I would emphasize Hitler’s role even more. His declining mental health throughout the war meant that as time went on his judgement, paranoia, and faculties in general rapidly deteriorated. And ultimately I think that’s what did Germany in. That and its allies, as you partially pointed out (Italy also caused significantly more problems than benefits for them)
It actually is answerable by a single point. One word, 'Logistics'. You can, possibly, attach that to production but ultimately, whatever the reason, the inability to deliver resources to points of action left them entirely inept.
Hi Simon!
2:40 in this context the better translation would "selfsufficient" in the sense that every unit on the battlefield has all skills and assets available to adapt to emerging problems with the tactical/operational goal in mind. It's not just a safeguard for communication loss, it's also meant to reduce the workload of higher command and thus shorten killchains.
Is it me or is that the first appearance of the coffee cup? I can’t recall it in other videos.
Percy Hobart is the perfect example of how the British military treated its soldiers that didn't have enough status. Percy Hobart developed what's known as the Blitzkrieg and he gets no credit for it
My take (before watching past the video's intro)? They were all coming down off of Amphetamines :P
Simon trying to say german words is my favourite funny thing 😂❤
It's too cringe to be funny.
Adam Tooze has a great book on the Nazi economic policies that led to its collapse, The Wages of Destruction. Could even be an episode on one of these channels.
Why did Germany do so well early on: Hitler's hubris
Why did Germany do so horribly in the end: Hitler's hubris
Thanks for a good video!
I actualy agree with most of arguments, but I also want to add something.
There are many, many factors, that contributed to final defeat of Germany, witch (in my opinion) was inevitable. As far as I'm aware, president Roosevelt was actively trying to persuade US public opinion to join the war along side GB, and attack on Pearl Harbor was just a thing that he needed (again - my opinion), so the war between USA and Germany would breake out anyway. Mayby it would be more cold one than in our timeline.
Also an analogy to my mind - war is like a sport game - when you are winning, you apply sophisticated tactics and you dare to risk, but when you are loosing, your tactics became more and more simple, so your opponent (or enemy) can exployt.
FDR was absolutely looking for a good excuse, but had he not been given one, I don't know that we end up with boots on the ground. The isolationist sentiment in the US was HUGE at that time.
@@sinocte Good point. I agree. That's why, I wrote about "cold war". Thanks for your answer, cheers!
It fell?
I haven’t got to that episode on the History Channel yet. 😂
A two front war without undisputed logistics & resources is a deadman errand.
I've studied WW2 for decades. You pretty much hit the nail on the head here.
Now, Germany's alliance with Japan, that was a tactical decision to try and force the Soviet Union into a two-front war. However, the British held out, Hitler jumped the gun into Russia without finishing the British as you said, and Japan attacked Pearl Harbor as opposed to attacking the Soviets. Who knows of something was lost in translation there.
The German Afrika Korps failures didn't help, neither did the other part of the Tripartite Pact, Italy, with Mussolini's failures requiring the Germans to clean up after them.
The entire war could have been won by the Axis powers had Hitler not been a "jumped up little Corporal" and just willy-nilly sent troops everywhere. Had he let his generals handle everything, we'd be living in a different world right now.
I don't think it was a translation thing. Imperial Japan was way too big for its britches, and were bound to do whatever they felt like, treaties be damned.
This video is a pretty light (on fact) doc.
10:58 there was NO alliance between japan and germany
The tripartite pact between germany, japan and italy was a DEFENSIVE pact, requiring partners to come to the assistance of each other if ATTACKED by a third party, not currently at war with any of the parties. This discounted any current obligations regarding japan's war with china, and germany's european wars. While the intent of the pact was mutual defense in the case that US declared war on any of the parties... there was no obligation if any of the parties declared war on the US. As all should know, japan (belatedly) declared war on the US..... NOT the US declaring war on japan.
Hence roosevelt's address saying:
"I ask that the Congress declare that since the unprovoked and dastardly attack by Japan on Sunday, December 7th, 1941, a state of war has existed between the United States and the Japanese empire."
Germany was NOT obliged to declare war on the US, as a result of the japan/us hostilities. Hitler declaring war was a major suprise, to the great delight of churchill.
2:39 I already have one of those, Brain Boy...
🤣
The best book I have ever read on this topic is ‘Why the Allies Won’t by Richard Overy. He dispels the notion that the Nazis ‘threw away’ victory and shows how the Allies learned from their earlier defeats to effectively overcome the Nazis.
Simon trying to pronounce German words fills me with joy and pain in equal measure
Honestly comes down to a few factors. Lack of resources, betraying the soviets, and the high and mighty attitude.
Simon, Romania was not a "minor" ally of Nazi Germany, but quite on par with Mussolini's Italy when you consider the resources and the manpower it commited to the war. Also, Romania's Marshal Ion Antonescu was the only foreign leader Hitler actually listened to when consulting about the war strategies.
You can read more in the book "Hitler's Forgotten Ally"
Great episode, as always.
Looking forward for a sequel.
"Minor" doesn't refer to its commitment. At least, I've never heard it referred to it in that way.
Also this:
An entire German army (the 6th) came under Romanian command in May 1944 (as part of general Petre Dumitrescu's Armeegruppe), German commanders came under the actual (rather than nominal) command of their foreign allies for the first time in the war.
Marshal Ion Antonescu’s Romania was Adolf Hitler’s second-most important Axis ally after Benito Mussolini’s Italy (and one might easily consider Antonescu more formidable and useful from Hitler’s point of view than Mussolini was). Antonescu contributed 585,000 Romanian troops to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union from June to October 1941. At Stalingrad, in late 1942 and early 1943, Romanian troops fought alongside the Germans and against the Soviets with a particular ferocity. Romania, rich in natural resources and lying on the southern path of the invasion route of Operation Barbarossa, supplied Hitler’s war machine with critical stores of oil from the Ploiesti fields as well as other raw materials. Antonescu met with Hitler no less than 10 times, mainly in Austria and East Prussia, between the fall of 1940 and the summer of 1944, from soon after the Romanian dictator assumed power until a few weeks before his overthrow in a coup. As Deletant notes, “far from being overawed by the Fuhrer,” Antonescu often contradicted him to his face - perhaps the only person ever allowed to do so - speaking his mind fully about Romania’s territorial interests for hours on end, so that Hitler came to respect him from the beginning of their relationship.
@@manuionut9113 Bigger than Japan? I would say no. Again, it's relative. (even though I think the entire Japanese and German alliance is non-existent). The big three are the big three for a reason. I'm not saying that Romania wasn't a really committed. I learned recently how they were. But this is a relative term in comparison to others.
Yes, you are right.
About the German blunders in the Soviet Union Simon mentioned:
1. Late start of the offensive - it wasn't. If you look at the offensives in all subsequent years, they were always mid summer. Because spring time, even today, let alone in those times, turns the country into a sea of mud. While the original date was May 15th, the land was still way too wet and muddy to conduct an offensive operation of that scale. Which is why it was continuously postponed until 21st of June. The Fuhrerdirective 15 said that preparations should be done by May 15th, but the actual date of the invasion was left to determined based on the situation in the field. Attacking in May would have been a blunder, they would have bogged down right at the border.
2. German logistics DID have winter clothing in the depots. The problem was extended logistics and a limited logistics capacity inside the USSR - so the choice had to be made what is the most crucial to bring up to the front. They decided, rightfully, that ammo, weapons, food and spare parts were more important. Clothing was given the smallest priority out of all the things that the army needs. So it wasn't a blunder, it was a result of logistics limitation that would not have changed if they made any other decision. They could give clothing a priority... but then something else would have to be lower in priority. Food? Fuel? Ammo? Take your pick.
3. Germans were greeted as liberators by a minority of people and they were coming across populations that were not capable or willing to go into the main army units. Those folks were already mostly mobilized in the Red Army anyway. And on a few occasions Germans did use the folks mobilized in the East, they proved to be a disaster. They saw some limited use in the Western front later, as garrison units, but in the East, they were next to useless. In military terms. And Germans knew that - outfitting a unit like that with weapons, logistics and everything meant that some other unit from Germany or proven allies, could not be outfitted - and Germans already had trouble outfitting their own units. Especially in that earlier part of the war, Germans did not have a problem with manpower, they had a problem with skilled manpower. And getting a bunch of mobilized peasants not in their prime to serve as a frontline unit is a recipe for disaster. Which is one of the reasons why weren't doing it.
4. Hitler started meddling only after Barbarossa failed in December. His orders during it, mainly to Army Group Center, were in fact the part of the original plan - which was to destroy the bulk of the Red Army within 700km of the border so that the German supply system can supply the troops. Pushing into the interior and towards Moscow was, per plan, only to be conducted as a mopping up operation when basically nothing is left of the army. Some generals from the Army Group Center, mainly Guderian, kinda forgot the logistics and a strategic goal and wanted the glory of capturing Moscow (thinking that would force USSR to capitulate) and Hitler and OKH had to remind them what the goal and the plan were. That is why Army Group Center was ordered to stop going deeper into the interior and swing north and south and do its bloody job and encircle the Red Army units. There's no blunder, blunder would have been to advance even further in the center.
Germans did make some blunders, but those 4 were not it. And in the end, no matter what they did, they could not have changed the outcome. German Army in the East was basically broken down by October 1941. Their fighting force was spent before they even came close to their goals - because after the initial shock, Red Army started fighting back, hard. And they inflicted losses that Germany simply could not replenish, even before the onset of winter. There is a good video on that, how many combat capable divisions were left by November/December 1941 in the German army and by how much they mistook the Soviet reserves (spoiler alert, they thought USSR can muster some 20-30 reserve divisions after the bulk of the Red Army was destroyed - USSR mobilized more than 800).
No amount of planning and not-blundering would have helped them. Prolong the war? Maybe. Win it? Nope.
early war success use strategic redeployment and battleplan everything
Honestly, a good chunk of it is that Germany (particularly Hitler) got cocky and the Allies didn't. There's a LOT of signs of this.
-Declaring war on the US to maintain the useless alliance with Japan
-Launching Barbarossa without
- finishing Britain off
- figuring out the logistics of how to transport materiel when on the Soviet rail network - the rail gauge is different, so European rolling stock doesn't work in places that were under the Soviet umbrella (this is also a thing regarding aide in Ukraine today, there's only a couple of facilities equipped to expedite transfer of cargo from one kind of train to the other)
- paying attention to the logisticians who said they'd run out of fuel exactly where they ran out of fuel
- issuing winter clothes to allow for the contingency of Blitzkreiging the world's biggest country not working perfectly.
-Time and time again ordering forces to hold out indefinitely in places where a strategic withdrawal could have preserved army strength for a later encounter when it might have been usable to regain the initiative.
-Attacking obvious strong points like the Kursk Salient
Conversely, the Allies, after winning almost every battle for months on end, suddenly facing the offensive in the Ardennes now known as the Battle of the Bulge, treated it as a dire emergency and promptly redirected their focus into containing the counteroffensive rather than counterattacking. The Allies designing floating harbours not seen before or since in order to sort out the logistical needs of an amphibious assault on days 2 to however long it takes to capture an actual port, rather than assuming they would manage to capture a port in time.
There is also the sheer productivity angle, which you can't get away from. Germany did well early in the war because they spent years preparing for war. Nobody else was ready, that's a big part of why appeasement was the preferred solution in 1938. (It's certainly also due to timid leadership on the part of figures like Chamberlain, but that timidity comes in part from a general lack of willingness to prepare for and conduct war.) But give the Allies a few more years and we see Soviet factories in the Urals and Siberia protected by the European segment of the Soviet Union and American factories and shipyards safely protected by thousands of miles of open ocean all churning out thousands of tanks and artillery guns and the US shipyards churning out ships to carry them wherever they are needed.
Personally I don't buy Germany not being threatened by America because of the ocean, in the no-Britain scenario - the bigger contributing factor there is that the US was very much in favour of a Pacific First strategy and without Britain there to first negotiate them into agreeing to help and then continually reminding them of the agreed focus on Europe, the US might just have left Germany alone until they finished up with Japan. I assume this ends the same way vis a vis nuclear weapons as the finishing blow, since we've got the US hitting Japan harder but the Soviets are probably not available to be sending a big angry land army into Japan's continental territories. (How exactly the situation with the Soviets plays out in Europe without Britain is entirely its own thing, but it's safe to say things don't go well with the Soviets fighting a one-front war with Germany rather than fighting on one (very, very large) front of two and eventually three total fronts as was the case historically.)
What happens after VJ Day (and this is entirely my guesswork based on my very limited knowledge, don't take this as anything more certain) very much depends on whether or not Germany manages to develop the bomb without the SOE stirring up trouble. Most of the projections I've heard suggest they don't, in which case we're still in pre-MAD days and the US is pretty much free to glass anything they want to, so I suspect Germany quickly surrenders with at least one city an irradiated crater in this case. If they *do* have the bomb, though, we either get pre-ICBM nuclear war, which isn't pretty but the US probably doesn't suffer too badly because they have enough naval and air power to limit Germany's ability to actually deliver their nukes, and isn't quite as civilization ending as the modern version where we have enough ICBMs carrying big enough warheads to erase most cities with a population over a million in any targeted country....or someone comes up with MAD during the war and we get a period of uneasy Cold War "peace" just with Nazis instead of Commies as the other side. Which doesn't quite hit the same ideological heights that the real Cold War does - fascism isn't as antithetical to capitalism as communism is (and indeed, a lot of far left thinkers are of the opinion that fascism is the logical endpoint of capitalism), so we *might* eventually see a scenario where the two sides of this alternate Cold War reconcile. Or Nazi Germany collapses under the forces of its inherent corruption and various internal resistance efforts early enough that this is less an extended Cold War and more a brief and weird capstone to the war.
The Germans also did so well early on as they essentially got a practice run during the Spanish civil war as they aided Franco’s forces sending generals, commanders, troops and weaponry so they would get experience in combat, trying out new military tactics and techniques, and also working out how to subdue local populaces.
Why is your audio piercing my soul 😂😅
The poshest accent on the internet attempting to do a posh accent was comedy gold 😂👏🏼
1:15 - Chapter 1 - The rise
8:55 - Chapter 2 - The fall
*Nazis exists*
America & Soviet Union:
ALLOW OURSELVES IN
Underestimating the effectiveness of British radar and interceptors. The Tripartite Pact with Italy and Japan as mentioned was probably one of the biggest alliance-blunders in history. The Axis had inferior fuel which was partly what they were trying to win control of. The resulting losses of good soldiers begins a wave of inexperienced replacements facing The Allies’ seasoned veterans who have rotation and a tour of duty, and this becomes a downward spiral. Finally, fighting a war of technological advancement that is turning defensive while being so strung out that they couldn’t differentiate between some genuine innovations and several bizarre contraptions.
Another factor: Dictators don't surround themselves with competent personnel, they surround themselves with "friends" and put them in places where they have no competence.
They lost the war of industry.