I'm always fascinated the most to hear story's about the last year of the war on the German side. Whatever the end may be, they kept on fighting whatever the cost. The Russians literally had to fight to Hitler's doorstep before the war came to an end. And even then after the official surrender on may 8th, German units kept on fighting.
They should have surrendered in July 1944 after the eastern front collapsed. Whatever happened after that could not have been worse than what actually happened.
Those who were in the bunker during the last few months of the war talk about how Hitler would often stare at his favorite painting. That being a painting of Frederick the Great. A Prussian emperor who greatly expanded the German empire and cemented Germany as on of the leading powers in Europe. Frederick the Great is probably best know for his successful navigation of the 7 year war where he was fighting the Russians on the east and the British on the west and was able to avoid defeat and come out of the war on favorable terms. I believe Hitler thought this was possible for him as well, he believe there could somehow be a turn in the war, either militarily or politically. He imagined Germany could still yet come out of the war whole and with her independence intact. So he fought to the end.
sometimes i just find it so weird that the world today would be so much different if germany had a single major ally that actually helped them and if they had more supplies
They tried their best like honorable warrior way. Germans one of the warrior nation they did what they have to be.. this was not a regular war. It was all or nothing fight. They fought against all not only a few.
Always astounds me that in the same breath people can say that the Allies were the good guys and that the USSR was a key member of that alliance, which enslaved half of Europe Prime example of double-think
To compare the Nazis barbarism and genocidal ways to the communists after the war is ridiculous. The Nazis killed 27 MILLION Russian Soldiers and Civilians during the War. Russia did FORCE millions to live under Communism, however the comparison is laughable. It always astounds me that people can say that and think they know anything about the WW2. This was the 2nd time Germany and Austria Hungary had attack Russia in less than 25 years, so they smashed them to pieces and took control of many of their people and lands. We the Russians good? Hell no, but nothing compares to what the Nazis did in Europe, Russia and other parts of the World.
@@suavifyu8937 I'm talking about the before the war - the USSR murdered tens of millions of its own citizens and genocided 6 million Ukrainians It also sent millions more to concentration camps and invaded a dozen countries Why would you ally with such an evil country and help it enslave half of Europe
I have read this part of altercation between Hitler and Guderian in the book Battle For Berlin by Cornelius Ryan. What you said in your video is exactly the same as in the book.
In my opinion, the most sensible thing was to surrender or negotiate a generally favorable peace sometime in 1943 when Germany still possessed awesome military power but could no longer force a decision like it could up to 1941. That would however require Hitler to step down, which he would never do, and it would require a general mutiny, which is fundamentally uncharacteristic of Germans. Even deep into 1944 this might have still been possible, until the Allies solidified their foothold in France. After that, Germany didn't have much to bargain with and just played for time. The only other alternative was to hope for the Allies to have a falling out, which might happen, but not in such a way to benefit a Germany with Hitler as leader. Only with Hitler and the Nazis out of power would the Allies treat with Germany. But if Germany was unwilling to surrender, there was a pretty much 100% chance of Germany losing the war even if they never attacked at Kursk and just played smart defense. They could make everything extremely expensive for the Allies, which the Germans did anyway, but the smartest thing was to attack, if they weren't going to do the even smarter thing of just surrendering. The Arnhem opération was truly jackassery but it was an aberration. The Allies likely wouldn't keep sticking their neck out while grinding Germany to dust. Germany on the other hand had a tiny little chance to force a political change if they won a jackpot victory while attacking, so they took that gamble. They lost, but they would have lost anyway, so if they were determined to fight, then attacking was the smart thing to do.
Mussolini pleaded with Hitler to make peace with Stalin 1943. Hitler told him that we will have to fight them eventually so we might as well do it now while we have the Army there.
The Bagration offensive in the summer of 1944 resulted in 770.000 casualties on the russian side. Huge losses. This is what meant to fight the german army. Even in defeat they inflicted enormous losses on the russians. Time and time again, the german army recovered from the defeats and fought on. Delaying the advance of the allies on all fronts.
Good summary. They unfortunately had very limited options and had to do what they did. With the Allied stance of unconditional surrender, they fought for a different outcome, which never happened. The whole war could have been shortened if the Allies had agreed to a fair negotiated surrender, unlike the end of 1918. To many Allied leaders wanted to see Germany destroyed completely. Thanks again, as always, for a great video.
The thing is with a conditional surrender, you have to remember it's much harder to eradicate fascism and Nazism because a negotiated surrender with the Nazis would mean that the Nazis would never allow Nazism or their ideology to be eradicated. At best the Nazis would have allowed for the military to be reduced, and to restore the pre-WW1 borders or pre WW2 borders. But they would never have allowed the total disarming of the military or the eradication of their ideology. Also many Allied soldiers would feel that their sacrifices were for nothing since Nazism would not have been destroyed in the end and given a chance to recover. Given a chance to recover and a second chance at conquering the continent I think even if it took 50 years the Nazis would definitely have tried again unless some kind of coup happened and ousted Hitler along with the Nazis from power. But we know how many coups and assassination attempts failed, in this case it's very unlikely the Nazis would be removed from power from the inside. The only good thing that comes from this is that Nazi Germany acts as a buffer between the USSR and the Western Allies.
@@charles_0017 they only ever wanted their pre-WWI borders. Conquering the continent was the result of Britain and France foolishly declaring war on them. They didn't really have an "ideology", either (outside of what was normal European thought at the time). Fascism would've stayed on in Italy, which would've been *glorious* 🇮🇹💪
I doubt Hitler would have negotiated in any case either side for that matter and as one American officer told his men, we had to do this twenty years ago and we have to this now we do not intend to do it again in another twenty years.
Or the whole war could have been avoided if Germany hadn't gone on a war of conquest while attempting to genocide millions of undesirables but yeah bad allied powers for not being fair with poor poor Germany
Everyone thinks Stalingrad marked the end of Germany personally I feel like it was Kursk and bagration had bagration never happened they'd have way more reserves and army group north would've still been more useful although army group north was still trying Soviet divisions but still would been more useful not encircle also pushing the allies out would not been such a pain and more possible in the west just my personal opinion
Bragation was the end for Germany, indeed. Personally i think Germany should’ve sued for peace after Manstein’s successful counter-offensive, before operation Citadel. That was the right time to negotiate terms at least with the allies.
Stalingrad debunked the Myth of the German Army being invincible. But they were still a Potent force in 43. As a matter of fact, Manstien pretty much saved the entire Eastern Front after the surrender of Stalingrad. It got him fired but he knew he had saved Germany for the time being.
@@lucasdamotta2931 Agreed. Manstien even pushed for them to sue for peace at this time. Germany would've still had occupied France, Norway, Western Europe and could've diverted their forces to Sicily and Italy.
@@bber45 do note the allies would've never peace with Germany in 43 1 cause code breakers knew what was happening in the Holocaust and 2 Germany was well national socialist led which was really unacceptable
@@kidgaminggaming5731 agreed. Western Allies for sure. They still would have launched D-Day, Operation Dragoon, etc...but it would have been much more difficult for the Western Allies to liberate Western Europe.
9:04 all those strategies were good and could have delivered better results but let’s not forget that the enemy had broken the German enigma code and so were able to read Germany’s most secret message and the Germans had no clue that it was broken. This information was not made public until 1980 so the allied generals were not as great as they claim to be. The Germans were always fighting with significant handicap, here are some: 1) The chief of German military intelligence was a traitor 2) Broken enigma code 3) friend and pain in the ass Allie Mussolini (Mussolini was heavy burden for Germany to carry) 4) constant fuel supply problem 5) not enough men 6) and being constantly drawn into a wider war
I don’t think given the situation facing Germany After January 1945, there was’t any best strategy in either offensive or defensive options only surrender. To continue fighting was only going to lead to failure and the slaughter on all sides. My wife great great grandfather was killed the day before WW1 ended……and he was on the winning side when the winning side knew that the war had already been won. Ordering soldiers to fight on when the war is already won or lost is madness.
One aspect not covered here is logistics which Germany was better at than is usually acknowledged as is the durability and effectiveness of their equipment. The East front is the best to study for that given that in the West Allied air superiority was much more absolute than in the East. Air superiority negated the best logistics and equipment. In the East the Germans always counter attacked often with surprisingly good results which would not have happened without good logistics and equipment and superior tactics. So it's not surprising that they continued this approach to the end, by defending they would be pinned down and destroyed by superior firepower, manouver was their only option..
Thank you for sharing this amazing video & and that accurate explanation of military circumstances of Wermakht during 1945. I think Wermakht was masterminds & and accurately practiced successful defensives & offensives operations during WW2 until final surrender...Wermakht was crushed under continuous heavy attacking in both sides ( eastern and western in meantime) & heavily air bombarding... without remaining of manpower reverses , organized new contingents & material resources ... I don't think there was any option for rescued that bleak circumstances ...
@@MrzorkV Who says? Winners write history, winners publish history, winners own history, and most of us know only what the winners want us to know about that so-called good war.
@@waynelittle646 mass genocide, many many massacres, a totalitarian government that brainwashed or murdered its populous and inarguably dragged all inhabited continents into war and caused the deaths of some 30-50 million people. WW1 may not have any defined ‘bad guys’ but WW2 certainly did
The more optimal things, what germans could do since summer of 1944 - make Alpine mountains as a stronghold with eat and ammunition for 2-3 years of defense. Then they may transfer big chunk of elite divisions and submarines to China and Indochina - trying to make some network of strongholds in remote areas - with non-German flags - but with the cover of marionet local governments. They had enough resources and time to made it instead of bloody resistance.
No. They only won at first because they got lucky. The Allies were caught off guard and were prepared for an old type of warfare. Once they saw how modern things were, it was over.
@@MrBassmann15 THAT'S A LIE; THEY CONSISTENTLY OUTFOUGHT THE ALLIES, AFTER BATTLE REPORTS POINT TO EXTREME FIGHTING EFFECTIVENESS BY THE GERMANS IN TERMS OF KILL RATIOS VS. MANPOWER. GERMANY; A COUNTRY THE SIZE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, FIGHTING AGAINST 26 NATIONS SIMULTANEOUSLY. I APOLOGIZE FOR OUR POOR PERFORMANCE.
@@MrBassmann15 how could the allies have been caught off guard when they had been publicly stating for years that The Allies would bring war to the German people whether they liked it or not...Britain France declared war on Germany 8 months prior to Germany taking defensive actions by launching an offensive operation into France and Britains Armies...Success is usually the result of some sort of luck but Germany snuffed out the joint allied forces to their East and West in 3 months time.
They should have prepared more defensively. They lost airpower and they knew this on the Western Front. The Allies controlled the sky and you could negotiate with the West and keep those 400,000 troops used on the Battle of the Bulge on the Eastern front to defend Germany.
I'm always fascinated the most to hear story's about the last year of the war on the German side.
Whatever the end may be, they kept on fighting whatever the cost.
The Russians literally had to fight to Hitler's doorstep before the war came to an end.
And even then after the official surrender on may 8th, German units kept on fighting.
It was a Holy War worth fighting to the last man
They should have surrendered in July 1944 after the eastern front collapsed. Whatever happened after that could not have been worse than what actually happened.
or just right after Bulge offensive
Unfortunately it wasn't the people who had the power to surrender but their selfish leaders.
Surrender? Maybe the Western allies shouldn't have continued waging a nightmare war to destroy their Volk. They had no choice _but to fight._
Is this satire?
Not the peoples fault but the people that the people put in power .....those people
Every German knew what unconditional surrender meant. So they fought on. They simply could not turn back.
Those who were in the bunker during the last few months of the war talk about how Hitler would often stare at his favorite painting. That being a painting of Frederick the Great. A Prussian emperor who greatly expanded the German empire and cemented Germany as on of the leading powers in Europe. Frederick the Great is probably best know for his successful navigation of the 7 year war where he was fighting the Russians on the east and the British on the west and was able to avoid defeat and come out of the war on favorable terms. I believe Hitler thought this was possible for him as well, he believe there could somehow be a turn in the war, either militarily or politically. He imagined Germany could still yet come out of the war whole and with her independence intact. So he fought to the end.
Great video!
I always look forward to your new weekly upload.
Ty
sometimes i just find it so weird that the world today would be so much different if germany had a single major ally that actually helped them and if they had more supplies
Had the Japanese attacked Siberia in 1941 it's likely Moscow would have fallen.
They tried their best like honorable warrior way. Germans one of the warrior nation they did what they have to be.. this was not a regular war. It was all or nothing fight. They fought against all not only a few.
Always astounds me that in the same breath people can say that the Allies were the good guys and that the USSR was a key member of that alliance, which enslaved half of Europe
Prime example of double-think
To compare the Nazis barbarism and genocidal ways to the communists after the war is ridiculous. The Nazis killed 27 MILLION Russian Soldiers and Civilians during the War. Russia did FORCE millions to live under Communism, however the comparison is laughable. It always astounds me that people can say that and think they know anything about the WW2.
This was the 2nd time Germany and Austria Hungary had attack Russia in less than 25 years, so they smashed them to pieces and took control of many of their people and lands. We the Russians good? Hell no, but nothing compares to what the Nazis did in Europe, Russia and other parts of the World.
@@suavifyu8937 I'm talking about the before the war - the USSR murdered tens of millions of its own citizens and genocided 6 million Ukrainians
It also sent millions more to concentration camps and invaded a dozen countries
Why would you ally with such an evil country and help it enslave half of Europe
take a minute and learn about the history of WWII
Thank you very much!
ty
Good history Channel
I have read this part of altercation between Hitler and Guderian in the book Battle For Berlin by Cornelius Ryan. What you said in your video is exactly the same as in the book.
Best military history vids thanks!!!!
ty
In my opinion, the most sensible thing was to surrender or negotiate a generally favorable peace sometime in 1943 when Germany still possessed awesome military power but could no longer force a decision like it could up to 1941. That would however require Hitler to step down, which he would never do, and it would require a general mutiny, which is fundamentally uncharacteristic of Germans. Even deep into 1944 this might have still been possible, until the Allies solidified their foothold in France. After that, Germany didn't have much to bargain with and just played for time. The only other alternative was to hope for the Allies to have a falling out, which might happen, but not in such a way to benefit a Germany with Hitler as leader. Only with Hitler and the Nazis out of power would the Allies treat with Germany. But if Germany was unwilling to surrender, there was a pretty much 100% chance of Germany losing the war even if they never attacked at Kursk and just played smart defense. They could make everything extremely expensive for the Allies, which the Germans did anyway, but the smartest thing was to attack, if they weren't going to do the even smarter thing of just surrendering. The Arnhem opération was truly jackassery but it was an aberration. The Allies likely wouldn't keep sticking their neck out while grinding Germany to dust. Germany on the other hand had a tiny little chance to force a political change if they won a jackpot victory while attacking, so they took that gamble. They lost, but they would have lost anyway, so if they were determined to fight, then attacking was the smart thing to do.
Mussolini pleaded with Hitler to make peace with Stalin 1943. Hitler told him that we will have to fight them eventually so we might as well do it now while we have the Army there.
when a country then a military is disbanded , you know they were tough customers who got results .
The soldier in the thumbnail picture was called Otto Funk.
Die Heeresgruppe Kurland hätte müssen wie von Guderian vorgeschlagen die Ostfront stützen.
A fascinating analogy.
The Bagration offensive in the summer of 1944 resulted in 770.000 casualties on the russian side. Huge losses. This is what meant to fight the german army. Even in defeat they inflicted enormous losses on the russians. Time and time again, the german army recovered from the defeats and fought on. Delaying the advance of the allies on all fronts.
Good summary. They unfortunately had very limited options and had to do what they did. With the Allied stance of unconditional surrender, they fought for a different outcome, which never happened.
The whole war could have been shortened if the Allies had agreed to a fair negotiated surrender, unlike the end of 1918.
To many Allied leaders wanted to see Germany destroyed completely.
Thanks again, as always, for a great video.
Ty
The thing is with a conditional surrender, you have to remember it's much harder to eradicate fascism and Nazism because a negotiated surrender with the Nazis would mean that the Nazis would never allow Nazism or their ideology to be eradicated. At best the Nazis would have allowed for the military to be reduced, and to restore the pre-WW1 borders or pre WW2 borders. But they would never have allowed the total disarming of the military or the eradication of their ideology.
Also many Allied soldiers would feel that their sacrifices were for nothing since Nazism would not have been destroyed in the end and given a chance to recover.
Given a chance to recover and a second chance at conquering the continent I think even if it took 50 years the Nazis would definitely have tried again unless some kind of coup happened and ousted Hitler along with the Nazis from power. But we know how many coups and assassination attempts failed, in this case it's very unlikely the Nazis would be removed from power from the inside.
The only good thing that comes from this is that Nazi Germany acts as a buffer between the USSR and the Western Allies.
@@charles_0017 they only ever wanted their pre-WWI borders. Conquering the continent was the result of Britain and France foolishly declaring war on them. They didn't really have an "ideology", either (outside of what was normal European thought at the time).
Fascism would've stayed on in Italy, which would've been *glorious* 🇮🇹💪
I doubt Hitler would have negotiated in any case either side for that matter and as one American officer told his men, we had to do this twenty years ago and we have to this now we do not intend to do it again in another twenty years.
Or the whole war could have been avoided if Germany hadn't gone on a war of conquest while attempting to genocide millions of undesirables but yeah bad allied powers for not being fair with poor poor Germany
Everyone thinks Stalingrad marked the end of Germany personally I feel like it was Kursk and bagration had bagration never happened they'd have way more reserves and army group north would've still been more useful although army group north was still trying Soviet divisions but still would been more useful not encircle also pushing the allies out would not been such a pain and more possible in the west just my personal opinion
Bragation was the end for Germany, indeed. Personally i think Germany should’ve sued for peace after Manstein’s successful counter-offensive, before operation Citadel. That was the right time to negotiate terms at least with the allies.
Stalingrad debunked the Myth of the German Army being invincible. But they were still a Potent force in 43. As a matter of fact, Manstien pretty much saved the entire Eastern Front after the surrender of Stalingrad. It got him fired but he knew he had saved Germany for the time being.
@@lucasdamotta2931 Agreed. Manstien even pushed for them to sue for peace at this time. Germany would've still had occupied France, Norway, Western Europe and could've diverted their forces to Sicily and Italy.
@@bber45 do note the allies would've never peace with Germany in 43 1 cause code breakers knew what was happening in the Holocaust and 2 Germany was well national socialist led which was really unacceptable
@@kidgaminggaming5731 agreed. Western Allies for sure. They still would have launched D-Day, Operation Dragoon, etc...but it would have been much more difficult for the Western Allies to liberate Western Europe.
9:04 all those strategies were good and could have delivered better results but let’s not forget that the enemy had broken the German enigma code and so were able to read Germany’s most secret message and the Germans had no clue that it was broken.
This information was not made public until 1980 so the allied generals were not as great as they claim to be. The Germans were always fighting with significant handicap, here are some:
1) The chief of German military intelligence was a traitor
2) Broken enigma code
3) friend and pain in the ass Allie Mussolini (Mussolini was heavy burden for Germany to carry)
4) constant fuel supply problem
5) not enough men
6) and being constantly drawn into a wider war
Well, Rzhev showed that a good defense is also of value.
I don’t think given the situation facing Germany After January 1945, there was’t any best strategy in either offensive or defensive options only surrender. To continue fighting was only going to lead to failure and the slaughter on all sides. My wife great great grandfather was killed the day before WW1 ended……and he was on the winning side when the winning side knew that the war had already been won. Ordering soldiers to fight on when the war is already won or lost is madness.
0:38 I thought I was the only one wonder same
They fought because they had to.
One aspect not covered here is logistics which Germany was better at than is usually acknowledged as is the durability and effectiveness of their equipment. The East front is the best to study for that given that in the West Allied air superiority was much more absolute than in the East. Air superiority negated the best logistics and equipment. In the East the Germans always counter attacked often with surprisingly good results which would not have happened without good logistics and equipment and superior tactics. So it's not surprising that they continued this approach to the end, by defending they would be pinned down and destroyed by superior firepower, manouver was their only option..
German logistical ability is grossly underacknowledged, considering what they were up against.
SPOT ON; EXCELLENT POINT.
Because the German way of war since the days of Frederick the Elector was always to attack. An impressive feat this late in a hopeless war.
What do you do when defeat is knocking at your doorstep?
_Keep fighting._
To all german soldiers of WW2: Respect and thank you for your service. RIP.
Thank you for sharing this amazing video & and that accurate explanation of military circumstances of Wermakht during 1945. I think Wermakht was masterminds & and accurately practiced successful defensives & offensives operations during WW2 until final surrender...Wermakht was crushed under continuous heavy attacking in both sides ( eastern and western in meantime) & heavily air bombarding... without remaining of manpower reverses , organized new contingents & material resources ... I don't think there was any option for rescued that bleak circumstances ...
ty
I hated them but can't fault dedication.
Thank you, Germany for making the greatest of sacrifices to defend Europe. Heroes RIP
Glory to Germany ✋️
you can thank my grandfather and so many from all round the world who fought in WW2
88
Germany were the Bad Guys.
@@MrzorkV
Who says?
Winners write history, winners publish history, winners own history, and most of us know only what the winners want us to know about that so-called good war.
@@waynelittle646 mass genocide, many many massacres, a totalitarian government that brainwashed or murdered its populous and inarguably dragged all inhabited continents into war and caused the deaths of some 30-50 million people. WW1 may not have any defined ‘bad guys’ but WW2 certainly did
The German Command knew the war was lost in the Easter front after the battle for Moscow .
And this was already in 1941!
The more optimal things, what germans could do since summer of 1944 - make Alpine mountains as a stronghold with eat and ammunition for 2-3 years of defense. Then they may transfer big chunk of elite divisions and submarines to China and Indochina - trying to make some network of strongholds in remote areas - with non-German flags - but with the cover of marionet local governments. They had enough resources and time to made it instead of bloody resistance.
The Germans were the greatest fighting men of WW2. It took 4 empires and numerous other countries to defeat Germany.
No. They only won at first because they got lucky. The Allies were caught off guard and were prepared for an old type of warfare. Once they saw how modern things were, it was over.
@@MrBassmann15 THAT'S A LIE; THEY CONSISTENTLY OUTFOUGHT THE ALLIES, AFTER BATTLE REPORTS POINT TO EXTREME FIGHTING EFFECTIVENESS BY THE GERMANS IN TERMS OF KILL RATIOS VS. MANPOWER. GERMANY; A COUNTRY THE SIZE OF THE STATE OF MONTANA, FIGHTING AGAINST 26 NATIONS SIMULTANEOUSLY. I APOLOGIZE FOR OUR POOR PERFORMANCE.
@@MrBassmann15 how could the allies have been caught off guard when they had been publicly stating for years that The Allies would bring war to the German people whether they liked it or not...Britain France declared war on Germany 8 months prior to Germany taking defensive actions by launching an offensive operation into France and Britains Armies...Success is usually the result of some sort of luck but Germany snuffed out the joint allied forces to their East and West in 3 months time.
Heros do not give up 🤷🏼♀️
Attack devastate the enemy withdraw and attack in another place, and elastic defense
The right answer was to cease fire and sue unconditionally for peace. Fallacy of sunk costs and all.
URSS on map?
The maps are in Spanish, and USSR in Spanish is URSS (Union de Repúblicas Soviéticas Socialistas)
Germany hadn't a chance of conditional surrender by the end of 1943
First. Depressed and anxious.
They should have prepared more defensively. They lost airpower and they knew this on the Western Front. The Allies controlled the sky and you could negotiate with the West and keep those 400,000 troops used on the Battle of the Bulge on the Eastern front to defend Germany.
RIP heiliges Deutschland ❤
Otto Funk?
what a waste
Poor sexually frustrated little gay man. This war could have been avoided if they had gay bars in Germany back then.
Who's gay?
I think you are talking about the wrong war.