Top 11 Misconceptions of World War 2
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 04. 2024
- The Top 11 Misconceptions about World War 2 - Eurocentric Edition covers "Blitzkrieg", Mechanization, Battle of Britain, Sealion, US, Me 262, Strategic Bombing, Aces, Barbarossa, Axis and Military Intelligence.
Military History Visualized provides a series of short narrative and visual presentations like documentaries based on academic literature or sometimes primary sources. Videos are intended as introduction to military history, but also contain a lot of details for history buffs. Since the aim is to keep the episodes short and comprehensive some details are often cut.
»» GET OUR BOOK: Army Regulation Medium Panzer Company 1941 German/English - www.hdv470-7.com/
» HOW YOU CAN SUPPORT MILITARY HISTORY VISUALIZED «
(A) You can support my channel on Patreon: / mhv
(B) You can also buy "Spoils of War" (merchandise) in the online shop: www.redbubble.com/people/mhvi...
(C) If you want to buy books that I use or recommend, here is the link to the Amazon Store: astore.amazon.com/ytmh-20 which has the same price for you and gives a small commission to me, thus it is a win/win.
» SOCIAL MEDIA LINKS «
facebook: / milhistoryvisualized
twitter: / milhivisualized
tumblr: / militaryhistoryvisualized
» SOURCES & LINKS «
Playlist with more in-depth videos: • Complement to Top 11 M...
Frieser, Karl-Heinz: The war in the West, 1939-1940: an unplanned Blitzkrieg. In: Cambridge History of the Second World War, Volume I: p. 287-314
Ferris, John; Mawdsley, Evan: The war in the West, 1939-1940. The Battle of Britain? In: Cambridge History of the Second World War, Volume I
Ferris, John: Intelligence In: Cambridge History of the Second World War, Volume I: p. 637-663
Gerwarth, Robert: The Axis. Germany, Japan and Italy on the road to war, In: Cambridge History of the Second World War, Volume II: p. 21-42
Germany and the Second World War. Volume IV - The Attack on the Soviet Union
Germany and the Second World War. Volume VI - The Global War
Rahn, Werner: Der Seekrieg im Atlantik und Nordmeer, Kapitel I: Der Atlantik in der deutschen und alliierten Strategie, in: Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg - Band 6 - Der Globale Krieg. S. 275-298
Horst Boog, Jürgen Förster, Joachim Hoffmann, Ernst Klink, Rolf-Dieter Müller, Gerd R. Ueberschär: Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg. Band 4. Der Angriff auf die Sowjetunion
Germany and the Second World War. Volume VII - The Strategic Air War in Europe and the War in the West and East Asia, 1943-1944
Das Deutsche Reich und der Zweite Weltkrieg - Band 7: Das Deutsche Reich in der Defensive. Strategischer Luftkrieg in Europa, Krieg im Westen und in Ostasien 1943-1944/1945
Boog, Horst: Die strategische Bomberoffensive der Alliierten gegen Deutschland und die Reichsluftverteidigung in der Schlußphase des Krieges; in: Müller, Rolf-Dieter (Hrsg.): Der Zusammenbruch des Deutschen Reiches 1945 - X/1- die Militärische Niederwerfung der Wehrmacht. S. 801
Schabel, Ralf: Die Illusion der Wunderwaffen. Die Rolle der Düsenflugzeuge und Flugabwehrraketen in der Rüstungspolitik des Dritten Reiches
Overy, Richard: Battle of Britain: Myth & Reality
Penrose, Jane: The D-Day Companion.
Lavery, Brian: We shall fight on the Beaches. Defying Napoleon & Hitler: 1805 and 1940
Günther Rall Interview:
• Bf109 Ace Günther Rall...
„Lend Lease Act“
www.legisworks.org/congress/77...
Roosevelt’s Fireside Chat / Rattle Snake Speech
www.usmm.org/fdr/rattlesnake.html
» CREDITS & SPECIAL THX «
Song: Ethan Meixsell - Demilitarized Zone
![[Barbarossa] The Major Errors and Blunders - Or why Barbarossa Failed](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/A_3R-Rkn_98/mqdefault.jpg)
If you like in-depth researched videos on Military History, considering supporting me on Patreon: patreon.com/mhv/
I have a rare book to send you... where would i send it to get it to you?
thank you, can you go to the about section and click on the email reveal and drop me a mail please?
I'm still not convinced about barbarossa, i can quote german officials about the incompatibility of the wehrmacht facing winter warfare, and that the winter caused barbarossa to fail.
Military History Visualized BUT ITS EdUcaTioNaL
Capitalism. Destroying good things since day one.
Germany in 1940: Okay, so we need to prepare for a decades-long war for France
Germany in 1941: Russia will collapse in a matter of weeks, right?
Ben Hamilton
Seems that overestimating your enemy makes you fare better.
+AI of course, you try harder/don't get too proud
Ben Hamilton kek
How much did the rapid collapse of the French military lead to the German belief that Russia would also collapse?
Hitler believed his own propaganda about the superiority of German troops.
Very interesting video. I was reading "D-Day Through German Eyes" awhile back. There was a comment from a German Officer that had been captured that I found very telling. He was being held at the beach and was watching trucks, jeeps, and other motorized vehicles powering off the landing ships. He kept wondering where are the horses? When he realized there were none, he realized the war was over. It does not get enough attention that horses were still used a lot in the German as well as most of the European armies of the period.
Yes, for Germany it was the Pferd World War.
I have also read that book and remember that comment. I also remember the one by the fellow who was very impressed that we made little effort to fix damaged vehicles, we just rolled another one out of the motor pool. And another guy who was surprised we were able to ship in all of our food and water, so we didn't have to live off local produce at all.
@@EdMcF1 Clever.
@@odysseusrex5908 Actually we had good repair capabilities for vehicles, especially armor, keeping vehicles in service, units available. The ones damaged beyond repair or in locations too costly to be retrieved from could be left because of the never ending supply of new.
@@lynnwood7205 That's certainly true. I was just retelling what the German soldiers observed.
The value of rotating fighter pilots back to teaching positions cannot be underestimated.
0:10 Blitzkrieg
0:49 Mecanized German Army
2:05 Battle of Britain
2:45 Operation Sealion
4:01 The US was neutral towards the war in europe
5:01 The Me 262 was too late
5:58 Strategic Bombing was useless
7:05 German Aces were better
8:14 Barbarossa failed due it being delayed
9:50 The axis was an alliance
10:16 Military intelligence won the war
The British and Americans defeated the Nazis. Soviet Russia won the war.
@@nicholasjones7312 how do you figure that?
@@adzthesaint i’m guessing he saying that the idea that the British and Americans defeated the Nazis by themselves is more of a fallacy. The Soviet union certainly did the most to defeat the Nazis. Even if the CCCP was almost as evil as the Nazis. The Soviets took on most of the German army, and suffered the most casualties.
Complete rewrite of WWII. The tiger tanks and ME 262 came too late to effect the outcome of the war. As for the strategic bombing, it made it very hard the Nazi to rearm as easily the Allies. The invasion of Russia failed because the Germans had to bail out the Italian in The Balkens in April and May of 1941 which caused the time table to be pushed back to Late June instead late May or early June of 1941. This delay cause the Germans to not have winter clothing available and be caught by the Russian Winter.
The Americans were neutral and more of a hinderance until late 1942
hehe, bronies
:)
wow, 2 war channel meet up?
may i hoping for a collaboration? XD
Collab with 'the great war' would be awesome
that moment when you see a channel you enjoy, commenting on a video from another channel you enjoy.
Wow, I follow both of your videos :)
FDR wanted to help out the british, the average american just wanted to be out of the depression.
true, since a large majority of the public viewed Germany as a civilized and wonderful nation. It was a difficult job for FDR and the Department of Information's head Robert Horton to convince otherwise
josh slatter Seems like he did both since American workers built the bombs, guns, tanks, and fuel for the Brits.
Carlos Medina bn
Bryce Boepple Nobody was innocent in WWII but saying that the war was for money doesn't make any senes. Great Brtitan had it empire destroyed, the USA aquired so much debt we still haven't recovered, if anything Germany benefited the most economically seeing how after the war the German debt was wiped and as of now it has become the econmic power house of Europe. The USA didn't make back as much money as you would think.
Brian, exactly. Bryce's FDR quote is his critique of Ford and Dupont, not a an expressionof his own feelings. Britain got net present hundreds of billions in value from the US during the war that was never paid back
"since that was pretty cold, lets get some hot air, onto politics" LOL!
Transition game harder than Stalingrad horsemeat "rations"
Yeah nice transition 😄
For those who may have misunderstood the title, "Eurocentric" means the "European Theater of Operation". The Pacific War was a completely different story and is very well covered in Military History Visualized (MHV).
MHV's and TIK presentations are up-to-date and outstandingly documented and/or referenced. Besides, Mr. Kast (Bernhard) is Austrian (German-speaking native), he can decipher and understand a lot of the original German sources of information. He also works in academia where he has access to a lot of original documentation.
Thank you Mr. Kast for such interesting and informative video productions. I spent my life in the military (28 years), attended the War College (Naval War College, Newport, Rhode Island, USA) and had to study "lessons learned from WW II" extensively but I have seldom enjoyed lectures that possessed the quality, the illustrations and that stirred up such interest as your video presentations. I wish you could teach military history in NATO higher education facilities (Military schools, colleges, war colleges...).
Again, thank you, Ciao, L Kapitän zur See USN (Ret), Maine, USA.
@lancelot1953: the word "means", which you employ, would probably be better qualified by a term such as 'in this context', since Eurocentric is merely a focus on European politics, culture, history and heritage: it doesn't mean a theatre of operations.
Nice.
First, thanks for your service, second, thanks for your insight into Mr. Kast's identity. I really love his videos and his accent. Thanks to both of you.
@@KeithCooper-Albuquerque Hi Keith, you are welcome. It is nice to read some "civil" and courteous comments on YT. Peace be with you, Ciao, L
@@elrjames7799 The context is the war to begin with, ergo by definition it's primarily referring to operations.
"Shermans were completely inadequate and tigers were the best tanks ever" comes to mind.
pfff Shermans was the most produced tank during the entire war
Muh ronson
Watch some war movies and you see which tank that usally wins. (Hint: it isn't the Tiger).
(If you count all versions) the t-34 was actually the most produced tank during the war (50'000 against the m4's 40'000).
Dylan Milne Shermans were awesome tanks but got outdated by 1944. Against Panthers and tigers and even that with fireflys they matched them. And tigers were pretty shit tanks overall. Since they were so unrelieable.
WW2 history lesson from a German accent is surprisingly refreshing..
He escaped, and Simon Wiesenthal couldn't find him
He says : the mistakes Germany made during WW2
I hear : how I will win the war when I get time travel
_and yes I'm joking_
“Austrian”
@@stephenryder1995 Yes he's been hiding in plain sight lol
@@darthkek1953 That's not funny (yes i'm joking too)
"With all those horses the Germans were either very heavily under-motorized or a bunch of bronies."
Ha! Okay you get my like and a sub.
Freundschaft ist Magie!
Actually in the mud season and snow season having so many horses was actually an advantage then a disadvantage. The roads in Russia were so bad, often not paved that trucks were not usable at all. Without horses the German army would have starved to death on the Eastern Front in 1941/42
XD but they still managed to take all of western mainland Europe and much of East Europe and almost took Moscow xD
Max Rebhorn and then they got fucking steamrolled.
That took 4 years and 20 million lives [?] . It took Germany 1/2 million casualties and 2 years of fighting to take all of Europe most of western Russia.
As an English speaking historian, thank you very much for producing these videos! It's great information and I appreciate you working outside your native language to bring it to us!
jet fuel can't melt steel divisions
Dresden was an inside job.
Victor was a Partisan helping the judeo-bolshevik collaborator, Arthur Harris.
paaatreeeck >mfw Roosevelt gave the fireside chat quote on September 11th
Brian Holdren oh oh YES! The alien Anewknocky from the planet Nahbooboo! Also the United Nations armies hiding on the borders of Canada (damn communists!) and Mexico!!!!!!!!!!! Did you know the first "Red Dawn" movie is a TRUE story?!!...and and...lol, that's enough, can't keep up.
Rob Aldridge it's shameful that youre so old posting things like this. Hopefully it's not too late for you to go to your grave while not being totally propagandized, but it's hard to tell.
Buildings don't collapse from jet fuel you dumb old fuck, especially building seven which wasn't even hit you predictable propagandized clown.
I like your explanations, they show history is made based on many factors, not just one.
excellent observation.
Observation is excellent
Such is life, is it not?
the factor I have been obsessed with lately is war production. It's simply amazing how much war production in the US and in England contributed to the allies win
Great analysis. I am 82. I grew up seeing mostly US films which gave a very distorted view of everything. My dad served as a combat engineering officer with the 3rd army in Europe. He also had a view that was very limited to his own experiences, but I trusted his view as an expert.
Thank you!
I would like to point out something you seem to have overlooked about Operation Barbarossa : When Germany invaded, they were treated as heroes by the poor populations on the border/frontier. There was a particular political unrest when Stalin began taking territory from other countries. There is a wide belief that Germany could have exploited this and taken Russia. They, instead, began rounding up anybody and everybody and sending them to die in camps or outright killing them on the spot. This fueled resentment amid the populace and gave rise to the partisan movement.
There is a lot of truth to this. When Stalin's son was captured he told the Germans the exact same thing. But the Nazis said they didn't want any " Untermenschen " left alive. An ideology that prevented any peaceful co-operation or collaboration.
Not everyone but enough to turn the locals against them, or at least no longer supportive.
This just makes me wonder what would have happened if Hitler were less racist
@@omargerardolopez3294 he wouldn't be hitler then
@@benismann not as we know him, but would be still called Adolf Hitler, maybe he would be remebered just like any other leader of ww2
"Fly to live, do or die..." Normally I wouldn't think otherwise, but putting them together like that makes me think you went for an Aces High - Iron Maiden reference.
;)
Up the Irons!
You're referencing all of my favourite things! I'm now waiting for a Harry Potter reference.
I would actually like to see an episode on why the French military collapse so rapidly, the role of Charles Degaule's book and the difference in equipment between the German and the French army.
It's pretty widely known, the French (and British) assumed the main attack would come through the north because they assumed that the Ardennes Forest was impenetrable to armored columns and get caught in a trap; also French tanks were scattered among their infantry divisions rather than being concentrated in forward-pressing columns.
@Audioventura the primary cause for Frances defeat was that they had no reserve divisions, all their divisions were deployed to the front line, the French could not react or reinforce breaching areas such as the Arden forest. As for tanks the French actually had many very good and reliable tanks.The German tanks at the beginning of the war could be seen as inferior in many ways. France and the allies never took advantage of their armor tactically to put it plainly. The generals had no idea what to do with these armored units in terms of tactics.
1) The presumption the Germans would drive through the Ardennes and into the Maginot Line.
2) France did not see any significant progress or boom post-WW1. In fact, they had a near 20 year depression of society, politics and economics. They just could not rebuild fast enough in personnel, and the idea of another possibility of a World War absolutely sickened the public.
3) France ALSO believe the British were "forcing" them into a war they didn't want to fight. Philipe Petain was one of the many who felt that this was not their war, and pushed for a ceasefire and surrender to the Germans before they had the possibility of destroying Paris.
4) Germany had good leadership that was capable of thinking outside the box. More importantly, many situations in which, like Rommel, conducting daring, incredibly stupid, yet effective maneuvers that caused chaos and confusion for the Allies.
5) Just not mentally prepared for another war in general.
There's deeper logistical, tactical, strategic and technological points (including radio communications improvements in German Armor as opposed to French Armor units) that would make people wonder how such a small military managed to overwhelm and defeat a much larger, allied force.
At its core: Speed, Surprise, Violence of Execution.
So the Sickle-Cut, where the Germans successfully went from the Ardennes and Sedan all the way up to the Channel, created an incredibly bad strategic position for the French, British and Belgians. Their plan had been to put their best forces in Belgium, digging in at the Meuse - in anticipation that the main German attack would mirror that of the Schlieffen plan in 1914. This left the best Allied troops cut off in Belgium, and in positions they hadn't even been in for very long. It is important to note that the Belgians did not allow the French and British until the Germans actually invaded them.
This was obviously a disaster, but it was not necessarily a fatal one. The Germans would have had a lot of difficulty actually closing out the pocket that now existed in Belgium, and their control of the "cordon" in France was not rock-solid.
However, the psychological effect on the French was devastating. The French right-wing, which overlapped significantly (though not totally) with High Command, effectively gave up the fight. A lot of them (explicitly) preferred the anti-communist Germans to the French left-wing, who had power in France. The 1930s in France had been incredibly divisive in the Left wing-Right wing fight.
Consider the situation in 1914: the French elite were determined to fight on, even when the Germans were knocking at the door of Paris. The whole republic fought hard for 5 years to beat the Germans. The exhaustion from WWI definitely contributed to the psychological state of the military in 1940, but with a firmer leadership and less political division, the French could have fought on in 1940.
Now they may still have eventually lost, but it would have cost the Germans a lot more - and would have definitely altered the course of the war.
Even though you do not know how to spell, if you know how to read, you easily can find out.
As usually, you were clear and concise, showing the sources you accessed for your presentation, and getting to the point with a brief explanation. As usually, you did a great job.
"Germany and Japan had a lot of shortages, except when it came to enemies; they were plenty of those around"
WW2 in a nutshell everyone, 2(3 and its allies) fanatic nations declaring war against the world and thinking they'll win.
Japan was frickin nuts attackin china,USSR,britain and USA at the same time they were on sicko mode bro
@@akiamini4006 they had border raids with the USSR, but they didn't declare war on them
@@yeatnumber1Dmuncher ah sorry must been HOI4 memory mingling😂 but seriously i thought they did just that you know like soviets left japan to usa to deal with in order to get their siberian troops west to kick some german ass which they did
@@akiamini4006 yeah the soviet-japanese non aggression pact freed up a lot of siberian troops. Japan kinda threw Germany under the bus lol
I’m reminded of the story, certainly apocryphal, of a little child in Germany during World War II, being shown a map of the world. The parent pointed out where Germany, Italy and Japan were, and then pointed to all the countries that the axis was at war with, so many more large countries, all over the globe. The child just stares a moment, and says to the parent, “has Hitler seen this map ?”
Wow. I have read countless books, watched hundreds of documentaries and seen videos about WW2. I haven't seen new information or perspectives in a long time. This channel is the first to provide to me new facts, information and perspective in years!!! Great videos, great channel!
One comment about pilots and experience-in the skies of occupied Europe, German pilots were over friendly (to them) territory and could bail out or crash-land and be back in the air the next day. They could be shot down mulitiple times and keep on flying, gaining experience and accumulating kills.
An Allied pilot who didn't get out of German airspace for any reason-whether he was shot down, had mechanical trouble or ran out of fuel-would most likely end up as a prisioner. An Allied pilot's first bad day could be the end of the war for him.
The Battle of Britain was exactly the opposite-the RAF pilots had the home advantage.
I've also read that at least some of the German Aces accumulated kills against antiquated and isolated Russian fighters and bombers.
Very true, but the #1 advantage (IMO) that the British had was radar. Had the Germans focused on destroying the chain home system & the airfields, & NOT hitting cities, the outcome of the BoB would've been much different!
@@stevebrownrocks6376 Even then, it wouldn't have been that much different. Many RAF bases were outside the flight range of German planes. If the RAF got really desperate, they could order their planes to be based at these out-of-range airfields. The planes could fly into combat anytime the radar stations saw anything coming across the Channel, but the airfields would be safe.
Thomas Saldana true, but without the radar the outnumbered fighters wouldn't have stood a chance. I don't think the Germans would've been able to defeat & occupy GB either way, unless GB totally surrendered.
@@stevebrownrocks6376 If this, if that, the Germans could maybe have defeated the RAF. But then what? There was no way they were going to invade Britain in the near term. And only in the long term if they could defeat the Royal Navy. Which they could not. Nor were they ever even close to defeating the Russians. From the moment they invaded Poland stalemate with control of Western Europe (excluding Britain) was Germany's best case scenario.
4:00 A large german army helmet, a marine anchor, and a pacifier, that is the most apt icon i've ever seen. really good job (No amphibius experience).
Me = Hey Hitler want to hear a joke?
Hitler = Sure
Me = Stalingrad
Hitler = I don't get it
Me = Exactly!
:D
Ha
but the germans did capture it.... only to be encircled
@@sandis2935 They captured most of it, but they never completely held the two gigantic factories or the riverbank.
@@odysseusrex5908 true
Well Done, MHV! Your Infographic presentation does an amazing job of "presenting the facts" in hard detail. BRAVO!
Minor correction regarding the Me 262: you know full well that when people say it was 'too late', they're not talking about the plane's combat readiness, they mean that by the time it was made operational, Germany had already lost the war (granted, you could say that Germany lost the war the moment they opened a second front by attacking the USSR - they just couldn't fight a total war on two fronts) - it was just a matter of how long it would take them to lose and how much territory would be taken by either the western Allies or the Soviets.
To be fair, they really weren't fighting a total war on two fronts. They were fighting an air war on two fronts but they were completely wiping out their enemies on one front and generally winning on the other until reinforcements arrived and they had to end the campaign in the West.
Remember that for Germany they really didn't have a second front until the invasion of Italy. The war in Africa was generally very small and also definitely not a total war.
Wow, this is at the same time the most concise, the most clear, obvious and convincing versions of these issues. Thank you.
i've enjoyed your videos for quite a while for their attention to detail. well thought out graphics, and ability to cover complex subjects in an approachable manner. I have pushed the like button on many of these videos for those reasons, however this is the first time I have wished for a love button. Your use of humor, from the bronies comment to the "If you don't have a hammer...." remark, was brilliant and added much to the video.
After watching this, my thoughts about the single biggest mistake made by the German High Command is not the decision to push forward with Barbarossa, but the decision to push the British too far. And not because I'm British, but because it meant that Germany's military assets and resources had to be divided and in some cases stuck in drawn out campaigns of attrition.
I think Hitler hoped/believed that the British would negotiate a settlement, and when they didn't, realized he had to knock the Soviets out of the war before the U.S. had a chance to militarize its economy and use Britain as a base from which to project its strength into continental Europe (Hitler wrote I believe as early as 1926 Mein Kampf that the U.S. would always come to the British side eventually just like in World War One).
their biggest mistake was that they assumed too much. They assumed poland would be given up by the allies, they assumed britain wouldnt want to fight a war, they assumed soviet union will fall in 0.3 second after the invasion, etc.
Altho it's pretty understandable considering that they were given austria and czechoslovakia for free
They could have gone the Middle Eastern route instead and seized the Persian oil supply of the British navy.
@@benismann Well Austria joined pretty much voluntarily and yes assumptions were made (the British estimated the Germans would defeat the Soviets faster than the Germans did btw).
@@watching99134 it doesn't matter what Austria or austrians say tho, what matters is if the big powers agree. And they did.
And allies making false assumptions is nowhere near as bad considering how much resources, time and space they have
This is breaking my world plz stahp
*Shields in ignorance*
IT'S TO LATEE
“Ignorance is bliss”
HOLD FAST PRIVATE, DONT LISTEN TO THE ALIED PROPAGANDA!!!
Well atleast it killed a bunch of allied propaganda to
Remenber hanz, 1 tiger 6 Sherman's
Love the dry humor and word play. Clear exposition!
One of the best explanations of this war that I have seen. Brilliantly done!
Unbiased history is very much appreciated, love this channel. God bless.
My History teacher used the word Blitzkrieg tactics in the context of the Schlieffen-Plan
This historian really is great. Keep up the good work. I've done a history degree and have an understanding of the issues but you dig into it so well and concisely revealing the truth behind myth. Well done.
thank you, be sure to check out my newer videos, because this was is rather dated (late 2016 if I remember correctly), since then I think I got a bit better.
Excellent review. Very enlightening. There are so many tv shows and other commentaries which are careless and inaccurate with their comments. One example is that RAF was on verge of collapse in Battle of Britain. It simply adds drama to some other point in the show but then becomes conventional wisdom. I’m afraid American shows are the most inaccurate. Loose lips not only sink ships but cause widespread lack of real understanding. I truly respect and enjoy your work.
Some of those horses came in handy when the 6th Army was trapped in front of Stalingrad. Seriously, this is well researched and presented. You are to be commended for excellent work.
This is a great video which gives plenty of clear info, enjoyed watching this.
Your videos are always interesting, informative, and dispels many false conceptions. As always, a marvelous topic and presentation. Kudos
Wow, I just found this channel and I'm loving it! Keep up the good stuff!
The biggest surprise of my WWII reading was when I bought a used book about the invasion of Russia for $1. Before that, I was only interested in the European side of the war. Afterwards I realized I had missed the most important part of the war against Germany.
eastern front is also european... moscow uses "the west" as a scapegoat despite knowing they too are western, and the anglo world eats it up. as an actual easterner it is obvious to see that the anglo and the moscowite are brothers, despite the mostly fake rivalry.
@@abbcc5996 The point the OP was making was that he was only familiar with the Western aspect of the European theater, no need to go looking for annoying points to make.
Russia is in "European side" of the war
i love this chaps very well reserched content
Most of his content in this video is bullshit
Well he has credible sources to back up his argument and you didn't refute anything in particular. I've also studied some of these things on my own time and at university and he's pretty spot on from what I can tell, so I don't know what you're talking about.
ChickenStealer im not saying he is right on everything, but if you call someone out without any proof to back up your claim then you are bullshit
MHV is a historian. He studied military history in depth in a university and has read authentic scourges from what I heard anyways
But his "facts" are still subjective. The snow and cold -30 degree temperatures did impact upon the dynamic effectiveness of the germans more than the statically defending Russians. Had Germans prepared to invade Britain first in 1941 instead of diverting a significant part of their forces to invade Russia they could have successfully invaded Britain. But there was a fundamental impairment of judgement by deciding to invade Russia ( probably based upon an arrogance of racial superiority) as it created a war on 2 fronts. That decision was probably the single greatest contributor to the war outcome favouring an eventual allied victory.
That was astonishingly different, yet convincing. Subscribed. 👍🏼
Good selection and explanation. Pragmatic, concise, calm, and well researched too.
Thank you!
@@MilitaryHistoryVisualized and thank you
The Me262 worked in its absence.
One photo reconisance Mosquito was chased by a plane he did not know about. He did know that no plane should be able to get that close to him.
However, he dodged and the experience was part of his debrief.
The next photo recce which went missing was chalked up to this new fighter.
Then it got a reputation.
So, whether it was there or not, beware!
Good of you to put up the facts.
Nice to see a channel that studies everything i study
Great video that put things in context. Props to you and the research you did for this.
Subscribed and ready to support good,informative videos like yours!
Do i detect an Iron maiden reference in the misconception "German aces were so much better"?
probably, since Aces High was the first Heavy Metal song I ever heard live on the Ed Hunter Tour in Stuttgart (Germany) September 1999 if I remember correctly :)
Military History Visualized Have you heard "Tailgunner"? Such a good song about the bombing campaign.
not live as far as I can rememember, but I have seen Maiden 8 times.... according to my spreadsheet, so it might have happened.
Military History Visualized 8 times? I'm jealous.
hehe, wait until I show my "spoils of war" :)
A few things:
1. Some German military thinkers were working on blitzkrieg before the war, but it wasn't adopted completely until after it was discovered just how effective it was. The Germans themselves were shocked by how effective it actually was. Before the war several leading military men had actually been against it, thinking it to be too risky.
2. Strategic bombing during World War 2 was extremely effective, but it wasn't anywhere near as effective as pre-war advocates had claimed it would be. That's why people think it was ineffective. The claims supporters made about strategic bombing between the World Wars were often completely without basis in reality. It was claimed that bomber fleets could win wars on their own by striking at the enemy's infrastructure while suffering and inflicting very few or no casualties. Now we know that those claims were complete baloney.
3. Unlike the Polish military, which had almost completely disintegrated by the time the Germans reached Warsaw(while individual units still fought, military cohesion was almost non-existent at that point), and the French military, which hadn't collapsed completely when the Germans reached Paris, but was just on the verge of doing so, the Red Army, while heavily damaged, was still intact and functional as a force when the Germans reached Moscow.
1987MartinT The German technique of mechanised war was shaped by the weaknesses of the Wehrmacht, ie the lack of heavy tanks and mechanised infantry and artillery. They grouped most of their tanks and mechanised troops into Panzer divisions to emphasise those troops strengths, instead of mixing them with horse drawn and marching troops and diluting them.
1987MartinT Without the delay to operation barbarossa I believe the germans wouldve captured moscow which couldve lead to a collapse of the soviet military. Germans destroyed the first line of moscow defences and captured over 500 000 soviet troops, this left moscow practically undefended with only 90 000 infantry left. Unfortunately the advance to moscow was stopped by bad weather.
Luukas Saarnio the Russians wouldn't have been stopped by the capture of Moscow, they had fallen back further east already and had millions of men. They would used scorched earth tactics past Moscow. How do we know? Look at Napoleon's campaigns in Russia. Also past Moscow Germans would have run out of oil and lost. It was pretty much unwinnable once the Soviets moved their industry and manpower east and were determined to fight (or be wiped out by claimed superior Germans)
Luukas Saarnio there is so much evidence even on this channel to debunk the moscow and delaying claim
KMessi6 Exactly. If germany had been faster and swifter in their attack the russians wouldnt have had time to move their industry and the capture of moscow would've been the final straw.
Your videos are so good and well researched- thank you.
Brilliant summary - thank you.
These are excellent videos; well researched, annotated, and free from bias. I know you tend to focus on European and global conflicts, but a very interesting area of research you might tackle in the future is the balance of means and military agency at the start of the American Civil War and how those material and leadership imbalances affected the strategic aims of both sides. Would love to see something on this...
great video as always!
This is a really excellent video, wow! Bravo and thanks much!
I love you videos so much, they really help me learn more about a topic I love. Great mic Btw.
pretty sure anyone who finds this channel subs
I just subbed and yes, I just found it. :D
Found it months ago, I'm glad I did, I could say, although it may have just over 100 000 subs, it's better than 50 million.
Nature Boy lol so true
MiguelPmpM that PewDiePie reference though
billcounterstrike I'm not 'subbed' to him, this kind of informative video helps more than his.
Man, i love your content. Greetings from Germany ;)
I LOVE LOVE LOVE ALL THE unique glyphs you use. "baby strategic Bomb" brilliant.
so many have uses outside this fine historical edifice. be nice if there was an attributed collection
Your 100% correct thanks for putting it out there!
No nope нет Nein
not freakin' hardly
It is interesting to see that my university teacher for his course "The political and military history of WWII" teaches those same misconceptions...
well, I basically made the list after I saw a video that stated "blitzkrieg tactics" were used... then I sent it to Justin (Navy Chat) and he agreed. Also a lot of that stuff came up in the comment section again and again, additionally quite many of those I believed at certain points in my life too, some is from bad documentaries, some from dated research and others due to political reasons.
Can you imagine what gets taught at a high school level, and how few people even take it at university level to begin with?
Well done. I particularly enjoy your graphics, they are very helpful
Glad you like them!
Thank you- interesting as always.👍
man, love your videos! they are very objective and full of useful information, always proved by real facts.
I am glad that I found your channel! keep up the great work!
I think one of the biggest successes of strategic bombing was, that the germans had to react. They had to protect important areas with FLAK and AA guns, they had to build up successes and radar stations, they had to keep planes at home as interceptors and they had to redeploy a huge part of their industry. Without a single bomb hitting a target that makes a huge difference. Industry capacity that was needed in so many areas was occupied by the strategic bombing.
Maybe but then again Germany peaked production output in 1944... so it’s very complex. Maybe Germany‘s output would have been smaller if the bombing didn’t make them so nervous about possible impact.
And Churchill after Dresden clearly addresses that the British have to stop terror bombing under false pretense of trying to hit industry. He was very well aware that the bombing wasn’t doing anything substantial to the industry and as said in this video some small effective operations against Ploesti and some specialized factories did most of the damage.
Germany didn’t lack industrial capacity or train routes, they only lacked oil, materials and some specialized parts
Your material is consistently excellent.
*Thank you for posting all of your videos. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!!!!!*
thank you! Happy New Year!
I love your videos. Very informative with a good amount of humor. Also, please say "Delano" ago.
Well you forgot one of the MOST common misconception people say "AlL oF tHe GeRmAn PaNzEr DiViSiOn WaS mAdE oUt Of TiGeRs TaNkS "
Terrific explanation and very effective graphics.
Very good video. Thanks for posting it.
This is the first time I've run across Military History Visualized videos. It is refreshing to see a completely content-driven and thoroughly researched documentary. The producer completely blows off flashy visuals and slick-sounding narration in favor of measurable evidence.
For me, the great joy of history is seeing a single event from many points of view. The differences in those accounts teach me more than any single story. Errors, remorse, justifications, conceits, strategic goals. financial pressures, religious doctrines, applied tactics, and more teach me about the human condition.
While I still enjoy the WWII combat footage, I will also look for Military History Visualized perspectives.
One of the map based wargame companies published a recreation of Operation Sea Lion they admitted to having to include non-historical elements in order to give the German player any chance of winning.
In 20 years coming, Russia never had a chance to take Kiev...
Great video. Thanks for posting it
Excellent information and presentation style!
If the Germans had won air superiority, wouldn't it have been irrelevant that they didn't have naval superiority? I mean it was my understanding that the ultimate goal of the air campaign over Britain was to literally gain the upper hand over the Royal Navy, so that they could have efficiently bombed any ships attempting to defend the British Isles from an amphibious invasion.
Yes and no. Royal navy was huge and launching an amphibous operation just a few months before winter would had been risky. Espicially with Germanys low capacity to transport troops and supplies across the channel.
But one cannot rule out the possibility of a succesful invasion in 1940 if they had good air cover and made a surprise attack, but the possibility seems very unlikely to me. The invasion of Norway the same year had also been costly for the German navy.
But with air superior in 1941, Focke Wulf fighters, the italian and VIchy navy I think the odds could had been somewhat better. But on the other hand would Britain probably had prepared better defences along the coasts, reinforced the island with colonial troops, trained more men, and built more tanks.. so its hard to know.
Long story short? Nah. The Brits basically had a fleet bigger than the Kriegsmarine in the channel itself.
And that's before the _entire rest_ of the Royal Navy get told to drop their shit and get their asses home *"Yesterday!"*
Or, if you want a better take on the subject and don't mind reading:
overlord-wot.blogspot.si/2015/07/operation-sealion.html
What would they of bombed the ships with? Stukas were pretty shitty dive bombers. Also the Germans had zero experience concerning destroying ships with aircraft.
+ComradeSulomon Are you not aware that the Luftwaffe also took part in the German anti-shipping operations in the Atlantic and the Mediterranean? Dornier Do 217 was one of the aircraft they used in that role. One of those sank a battleship, in fact.
Kristian Kumpula
The 217 was in its infancy, or even nonexistant in time for any decent attempt at Sea Lion, while the battleship-sinkage was with a guided bomb, considerably later in the war. Probably a fair amount of luck, too.
Within the time frame, they apparently didn't even had proper AP bombs.
Richtig Toll!
Good video. Well presented and nicely balanced.
Great work! Thank you!!!
That was very interesting, thanks! You mentioned the Axis was not a proper alliance, and indeed it wasn't. One wonders what might have happened if Germany had allowed it's allies to build Bf 109 or FW 190 fighters, Pzkw IV and later tanks under licence as well as allowing them to continue with their own research and allow for interoperability? By way of contrast, think if the P-51 with the Merlin engine, co-operation in the Battle of the Atlantic and so on.
Beautifully summarized.
Excellent. Have a subscription and thumbs up. I'm looking forward to a lot more of these videos.
Correct about Germany's lack of an amphibious warfare capability. This was hard won by the Allies, with Gallipoli in WW1, The Dieppe raid, Operation Torch (North Africa), Ironclad (Madagascar), Sicily, Selerno on the Italian mainland, as well as the US island hopping campaign in the Pacific from Guadalcanal to the Japanese southern islands of Iwo Jima and Okinawa...all before the June 6th 1944 Operation Overlord - Normandy landings.
The Boche had none of this and the Luftwaffe and Kriegsmarine in 1940 couldn't back it up anything like the Allied air and naval power from 1943 onward. Operation Sealion - the invasion of England would have made the Gallipoli fiasco look like a success.
First time in my life I see a list of top whatever, I agree with the importance of everything mentioned, and I even share the point of view presented. That feels really scary... What's wrong with me, or him? Are we both going crazy?
bakters because it's a video not made by an American
J B It's a video not made my a Top Ten channel based off of Wikipedia
The Internet is big; there was bound to be one.
Best visuals and charts thx
everyone of this guys works are so worth your time... if you're a (obsessed) ww2 afficianado, watch each and everyone...
Excellent. I liked and subscribed.
I was born in 1943 and my father was in the British Royal Navy. I have been fascinated by the history of WW2, first as a boy by the war movies made during and just after the war, and then as an adult by the later releases of declassified information.
I read Winston Churchill’s history, The Second World War, which contained a lot of detail, but was very one-sided (and self-promoting).
I am very hungry for the details from a German viewpoint. I would love to read a similar history by a German historian of the same vintage.
Have you ever made a video about Stukas? I think they are very interesting planes but I cant really find a lot about their actual effectivnes. I can only guess they were good from how long they were used but I want numbers.
They were old, under performing and slated for replacement BEFORE the war started. But they never were replaced - I think it was a political decision as much as a time and money one.
Still when Germany had air superiority the planes was useful - but in an even fight like the Battle of Britain the Stuka showed its age, and had to be heavily escorted, later even withdrawn.
tommy14 not sure if accurate but i heard that Goering LOVED stukas, which is one reason they kept being used. also why he demanded fighters protect them at all costs during the BoB which meant flying slow and being targets for hurricanes.
I read a book over 10 years ago entitled "Divebomber!" and the author goes into the history of dive bombing and how it was a lot more accurate than horizontal bombing.
The author is very detail-oriented right down to the tail numbers on the planes, when he can find them, so if you want numbers, you can get them if you want. It is a rather dry book, as many history books are, but it also has some very interesting stories hidden in it too, which makes the drudgery worthwhile.
Sorry I don't recall the author's name.
The Stuka, a purpose built Dive Bomber, was a product of the nineteen thirties, but dovetailed with a purpose perfect for its strengths. It was meant to operate near the front, in rough conditions, to carry heavy loads, and to deliver munitions with great accuracy-for aircraft, that is.
The oversize, perforated, Junkers flaps gave it good take off and landing qualities and its old fashioned fixed spatted, landing gear was incredibly strong and highly resistant to all kinds of damage-unlike the retracting gear of most other war planes of the time.
The Stuka often had two twenty millimeter cannon facing forward from the "kink" in the wing, and one or two rifle caliber machine guns in the rear of the cockpit. Different models carried ever increasing amounts of "dumb" bombs , though a common load in the "old" days was a single 500kg Bomb on the center yoke, and one 125kg bomb under each wing. By the "D" model, more than 2100 kg of stores could be carried.
Stuka was large, lumbering, and slow, in the air, like any other tactical support plane when loaded down with munitions. Once empty of bombs, however, pilots reported it a responsive, maneuverable, pleasure to fly. It was neither meant to be fast, nor was it meant to pull aerobatics other than its intended dive on an almost vertical plane. For putting a single bomb where it can do the most good, the Stuka is probably the best purpose built airplane ever devised.
The stresses of pulling out of the dive amounted to around 12G deceleration (when your guts are trying to force themselves out through your butt) at which point many pilots might pass out briefly. This was understood by designers, who automated the dive and pull out so that the pilot could struggle back to his senses after the run.
Some were used to strafe enemy ground troops and columns of vehicles, horses, and men. For these there was an add-on kit comprising two underwing machine gun packs (7.9mm MG34) pf six guns each, for a total count of twelve 7.9mm machine guns plus two twenty millimeter cannon. It was an unholy terror.
Naturally, like the Sturmovik and the Pe-2 when used for close support, losses were proportionately high among Stuka units. You were, after all, diving straight down the enemy's sights.
Early versions had 900 or 1000hp engines. The final evolved variant was the 1750hp powered G series Tank Buster. This had two 37mm autocannon (3.7cmBK), in pods, one under each wing.
6500 Stukas were built. Like all other tactical bombing aircraft, they are intended only for scenarios where the owning force can establish temporary Air Superiority or total Air Supremacy first. Otherwise they're just bait for enemy interceptors. Their decline was the decline of the Luftwaffe, for there is always need for such aircraft in an advancing army.
I am going to break a lance in defense of the Stukas. I honestly think they were not underperforming. In fact, I believe they were great support aircrafts, and arguably the best dive bomber ever built.
Their Achilles heel was its glaring vulnerability... but that is a given, since that type of aircraft is _meant_ to be operating with air cover. Any bomber is going to suffer without fighter cover, be it an Il-2, an SBD, a Blackburn Skua... your pick.
The heat resistant metal aspect was interesting. Never had I ever thought of that as a needed resource.
You opinions are always well explained and back up with data and other factual info. Thanks Bernhard.
Can you change the patreon icon to a more high res one?
0:50 Actually the word "Blitzkrieg" comes from an article written by Guderian in 1938, in which he talks about how a country with inferior manpower and resources but with a more disciplined and organised army can defeat a superior enemy force in small time.
Also, three plans were considered for the campaign in the west: One, a repetition of the 1914 plan, another a single strike towards the Maginot line and, the third one, a trap with three army groups (A, B, C) whose tasks were:
-Attacking through Belgium and Netherlands (group A).
-Encircling the incoming British and French forces in the Ardennes (group B).
-Avoiding enemy strikes from the south to line Sigfrid (group C).
This plan was the one executed, and can be counted as blitzkrieg since it followed the instructions given by Guderian.
Wdym. Blitzkrieg literally means lightning war
Blitz=lightning krieg=war
Kinda what Finland did to Soviet union
Well France alone had just half of Germany’s GDP and population and 1/3 of Germany’s industrial capacity in 1940.You are talking about combined power of enemy probably.
And this article is...? Interesting how academics just ignore this random article from one of Germany’s most famous generals
Excellent presentation, thank you.
You are a great popularizer historian! and God knows how much is needed.
I think your comment about Bliztkriege not being planned is lacking a broader perspecitve. Germany, and Prussia before it really focused on quick wars to knock out an opponent. This is highlighted in the Franco-Prussian War in the 1870s, and the doctrine of Schwerpunkt. This is what they wanted to do at the start of the Great War. I do see a point though that the label is newer, but the conecpt was in the German Army's DNA for a long time.
yes, but the main issue is that most people that throw around Blitzkrieg never heard of the Franco-Prussian War let alone "Schwerpunkt". They are usually "Blitzkrieg tactics" by "nazis"...
Mobility was very central in German/Prussian doctrine, but this also means "Blitzkrieg" wasn't something new. Of course, there is also a difference between operational and strategically.
Absolutely. I'm a big fan of the era after visiting the French Army museum in Les Invalides, Pairs. It really opened my eyes to seeing how much tactics of WW1 was the result of a gradual evolution out of the late 19th century.
A great video. From a personal stand point I consider the claims of the superiority of German Armour and the ineffectiveness of Allied Armour to be one of the greatest misconceptions of the second world war. But that's a personal issues I've been talking to people about for a long while.
Skringly Well... Crusader tanks were useless we all know that
The British had a knack for producing unreliable designs; it would made MAN engineers blush :D
Fortunately for them, they had some good designs here and there. The Valentine, for example.
@@VRichardsn Ironically, the Valentine didn't see that much action in British service after North Africa, and saw far more action on the Eastern Front in Soviet service. Although it was a bit undergunned for their tastes, it was extensively used as a training vehicle for Soviet tankers, and in secondary theatres, where the relatively poor armament wasn't such an issue
@@Xenonfastfall crusaders weren't useless, well some of the early ones were unreliable but once that issue was fixed if it was a solid tank, it was the early war tank doctrine that was terrible, once that doctrine was replaced they performed just as well as any contemporary tank
Always love your analyses
Very interesting and informative, and I think intelligent, studied, documented and professional. Thank you